APHC010129072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7089/2026 Between: 1. KILARI CHINA KONDAIAH,, S/O. KOTAIAH, AGED 57 YEARS, R/O. AVULAMANDA VILLAGE KURUCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE-523001 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523001 5. THE AVULAMANDA GRAM PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AVULAMANDA VILLAGE-523304 KURUCHEDU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the withheld amounts in the final bills towards the cost of material supplied and skilled and semi-skilled labour engaged by the petitioner for execution of the work i.e. Work ID No. 0208004004/RC/77060005080066 for an amount of Rs.2,21,897/- as illegal, arbitrary, malafidy, high-handed, and contrary to the procedure established by law apart from being voilative of Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release the of above amounts along with interest forthwith in the interest of justice IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release releasing the withheld amounts in the final bills towards the cost of material supplied and skilled & semi-skilled labour engaged by the petitioner for execution of the work i.e. Work ID No. 0208004004/RC/77060005080066 for an amount of Rs.2,21,897 pending disposal of the Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the withheld amounts in the final bills towards the cost of material supplied and skilled and semi-skilled labour engaged by the petitioner for execution of the work i.e. Work ID No. 0208004004/RC/77060005080066 for an amount of Rs.2,21,897/-, as illegal and arbitrary. 3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the 4th respondent. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and out of the total value of the work done i.e. Rs.7,07,426/-, an amount of Rs.5,13,238/- was already paid to the petitioner and the balance amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.1,94,188/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.1,94,188/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at Para No.8 as under: “Be that as it may, the High court has not dealt with the merits of the writ petition. Moreover, it is not an inviolable rule that no money claim can be adjudicated upon in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Non-payment of admitted dues, inter alia, may be considered an arbitrary action on the part of respondents and for claiming the same, a writ petition may lie.Further, throwing a writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy after 10 years, particularly, when parties have exchanged their affidavits, is not the correct course unless there 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”. 7. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,94,188/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Eight only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD