MUCHU GOPAIAH v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 03 Feb 2026
- Bench
- SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Outcome
Disposed of
to the petitioner, 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 66. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.6, 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…
Judgment
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: Heard Sri B.Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department appeared for the respondents.
2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding an amount of Rs.20,13,578/- (Rs.10,19,022/- + Rs.9,94,556/-) for the works executed by the petitioner i.e. i) Construction of CC Drain from Mirasi Fields Gorge Road to Giduturu Kyalasapatnam Road near Surisetti Prasad house at Rajupeta Village of Kotauratla Mandal, Anakapalli District and ii) Package No.14 (3 works) Construction of CC Road and Compound walls of Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, in pursuance of agreements dated 05.12.2023 and 11.09.2023, respectively, as illegal and arbitrary.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, 4 SRS,J W.P.NO.18600 OF 2025 submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Narsipatnam – respondent No.6.
A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works, and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.20,38,129/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.20,38,129/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 5 SRS,J W.P.NO.18600 OF 2025 disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.
.
Operative part
Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.6, 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.20,38,129/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Nine 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. Date: 03.02.2026 LSP ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: to the petitioner, 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 03 Feb 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.