M/S CONSTRUCTIONS, REP., BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K. VISWANATH 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider for payment for 1). Rs. 10,10,362/- and 2).Rs. 7,75,893/- then totally an amount of Rs. 17,86,255/- “Package No. APAM/Chittoor/Palamaner/08, Repairs and Relaying of existing damaged 5 Baireddipalle 86 V.Kota Mandals of Palamaner rural BT roads Constituency in Chittoor District.” In 1. PS Road to PC Gunta road via Chinnachallarigunta in Baireddipalli mandal- 24 lakhs &, 2. Nellipatla to Moolathimmepalli via MNR Palli in Baireddipalli mandal -29 lakhs vide Agreement No. 16/2022-23, Dt. 16.08.2022” with an interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass of work i.e., Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE

3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following order : Heard P. Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, 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 amount of Rs.17,86,255/- (Rs.10,10,362/- + Rs.7,75,893/-) payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e. „Package No.APAM/Chittoor/Palamaner/08, Repairs and relaying of existing damaged 5 rural BT roads in Baireddipalle and V. Kota Mandala of Palamaner Constituency in Chittoor District‟ in pursuance of agreement dated 16.08.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Chittoor.

4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.20,86,257/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after QC recovery/withheld amount of Rs.3,68,319/-, is Rs.17,17,938/-. 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.17,17,938/-. 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.”

7. Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Chittoor, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.17,17,938/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within four (04) 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: 23.03.2026 IKN/JLSR 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400