PENMETSA VENKATA RAJU 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 Direct the Respondents release the Admitted Bill Amounts to the petitioner M.Book No. 344/PR/ELR/2014-15 and M,Book No. 364/PR/ELR/201445 for the Z.P works Completed under SDF Fund Grants, material and Labour supplied by the petitioner for Construction of two (2) Multi purpose Hall's in Velpuru Village of Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. MURALI KRISHNA YELISETTI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

#2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri Y.Murali Krishna., learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 Admitted Bills to the Petitioner for Z.P works Completed under SDF (2018-19) Fund Grants, material and Labour supplied by the petitioner for Construction of (1) Multi purpose Hall at Rajakulapeta and (2) Construction of Multipurpose Hall at Velpuru Village of Tanuku Mandal, West Godavari District., vide M.Book No. 344/PR/ELR/2014-15 for an amount Rs.3,96,113 plus GST and M.Book No. 364/PR/ELR 2014-15 for an amount Rs.1,69,306 plus GST Total An Amount of Ps. 5,65,419 plus GST, 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 Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Bhimavaram.

#4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the total value of the work done by the petitioner comes to Rs.5,96,347/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.26,027/- comes to Rs.5,70,320/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

#5. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.5,70,320/-. 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 of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”.

#6. Given the instructions furnished by the 4th respondent, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.5,70,320/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Thousand Three Hundred and Twenty only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within three (03) 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. PVD ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400