J. RADHA KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Division, Machilipatnam, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.15,71,384/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Four only) payable to the petitioner…
Judgment
Cause title
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 respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- + GST for the works executed by the petitioner for Filling of Low-lying Lands in YSR Jagananna layout colonies of Krishna District i.e., pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
2. MALLIKHARJUNA MOORTHY K (SC FOR A.P HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED)
3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::
ORDER ::
Heard Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Finance for respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and Sri Mallikarjuna Moorthy K, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3.
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- payable to the petitioner for the works executed i.e. „Land Levelling 1st stage in YSR Jagananna Housing colony in 18th Ward Gilakaladindi Block-III layout in Machilipatnam (Urban) (Layout ID:068118LA000776) Part-1 and Part-2‟, as illegal and arbitrary.
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted the instructions of Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam.
A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.63,23,318/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after QC recovery/statutory recovery of Rs.8,69,333/- is Rs.54,53,985/- out of which the petitioner was paid Rs.38,82,601/- and the balance amount payable is Rs.15,71,384/-. The instructions are made 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 works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.15,71,384/-. 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.
Operative part
Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.15,71,384/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, 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. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 21.04.2026 IKN 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4486 of 2026 Date: 21.04.2026 IKN
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Division, Machilipatnam, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 21 Apr 2026. The bench was SUBBA REDDY SATTI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.