RAJANALA RAVI KUMAR v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

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 grant interim direction directing the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.4,60,546/- for providing internal roads in YSR Jagananna Colony, Dondapadu village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED)

The Court made the following order: Heard, Sri B.V.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1, 2, 4 to 7, and Sri K.Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing counsel for the 3rd respondent.

2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.4,60,546/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., Providing internal roads in YSR Jagananna Housing Colony at Dondapadu Village, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District, as illegal and arbitrary.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Machilipatnam – 6th respondent dated 20.03.2026.

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.4,60,546/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.46,370/-, is Rs.4,14,176/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.4,14,176/-. 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 are disputed questions 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.