Writ Petition No. 179 of 2025 · Andhra Pradesh High Court · 2026

premises, relating to Sri Racharaya Swamy and Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Chakrayapeta (V & M) of YSR Kadapa District.

2. Completion incomplete Kalyanamandapam Sri Venkateswara Swamy Temple at Chakrayapeta (V & M) of YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall Siddeswaraswamy Temple Bandlayyagaripalli Village in Surabhi GP of Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Rs.67,23,830/- Rs.19,23,647/- W.P.No.26322 of 2024

33. W.P.No.23306 of 2024 9 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch

34. W.P.No.22736 of 2024

35. W.P.No.1979 of 2025

36. W.P.No.1958 of 2025

37. W.P.No.1929 of 2025

38. W.P.No.1930 of 2025

39. W.P.No.1798 of 2025

40. W.P.No.1839 of 2025

41. W.P.No.1790 of 2025 Providing Fencing and Retaining Wall integrated Bramhanapalli Village of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall Digital Library at Atchavelli (V & GP) of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of RCC Pipe Culvert of 1000 mm dia. NP3 Class Pipes of 4 Rows Culvert to Pilla Vanka between Sivalayam – Burial Ground in Goturu (V & GP) of Thondur Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Grama Sachivalayam Building at E.Kothapalli (V & GP) of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Health Clinic Building at E.Kothapalli (V & GP) of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Culvert for the road from Atchavelli to Jalaparthi at Atchavelli GP of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Anganwadi Centre Building at Kanepalli Atchavelli GP of Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall to New Grama Sachivalayam Complex at Muthukuru (V & GP) of Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall Rs.80,00,000/- Rs.15,34,896/- Rs.12,82,356/- Rs.4,43,149/- Rs.4,24,070/- Rs.13,33,926/- Rs.11,75,365/- Rs.17,07,217/-

42. W.P.No.1791 of 2025 Gangamma Temple in Chinthalajuturu Rs.11,45,024/- Village and G.P. of Vemula Mandal, 10 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Protection Wall to Sivalayam Temple Chillekampalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Chakrayapeta Mandal, PRI Vempalli, PRI Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District. Providing CC Road from Sivaiah fields to Rama Mohan Reddy fields of Dondlavagu Village of Lingala Mandal in YSR Kadapa District.

1. Providing CC Road from Bukka Peddi Reddy House to OHSR new (Water Tank) at Isukachintalapalli, Kotturu Village of Chkrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District.

2. Construction of Compound Wall to Park near MPDO Office Chakrayapeta Village and Gram Panchayat of Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Repairs to Building and Toilets for Polling Station No.265 at Gandikovvuru Village of Gandikovvuru Gram Panchayat, Chakrayapeta Mandal, Vempalli, PRI Pulivendula, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Protection Wall Vaagu near SC Colony in Kathaluru (V&GP) of Vempalli Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall Grama Sachivalayam Office and Digital Library in Y.Kothapalli Village of Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Rs.3,55,996/- Rs.19,76,986/- Rs.26,35,083/- Rs.4,39,230/- Rs.35,27,728/- Rs.22,82,788/-

43. W.P.No.31104 of 2024

44. W.P.No.233 of 2025

45. W.P.No.30994 of 2024

46. W.P.No.31063 of 2024

47. W.P.No.28084 of 2024

48. W.P.No.26448 of 2024 11 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch Providing Road Dam and Slab Culvert to the road from Simhadripuram –

49. W.P.No.26492 of 2024 Musalreddypalli R & B Rs.33,93,061/-

50. W.P.No.27613 of 2024

51. W.P.No.8822 of 2025

52. W.P.No.8824 of 2025 Y.Kothapalli of Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall to BC Burial Ground in Bhumaiahgaripalli (V) of Meedipentla GP of Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Bulk Milk Collection Unit in Kovaramguttapalli (V&GP) of Simhadripuram Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Protection Wall and Compound Wall to Muslim Burial Ground in Lingala (V & GP) of Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Formation of Gravel Parnapalli to Chinnakotla Village Rs.33,09,110.12 Rs.19,32,315/- Rs.16,99,926/-

53. W.P.No.8826 of 2025 (Gandikota Water Point to Sathya Sai Rs.3,83,020/-

54. W.P.No.8850 of 2025

55. W.P.No.5127 of 2026 Pump House) of Parnapalli (V & GP) of Lingala Mandal. Completion of incomplete Bulk Milk Collection Unit in Velidandla (V & GP) of Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of 8VX 1000 mm Dia Pipe Culvert Lothu Vanka Kondavandlapalli Village Marellamadaka Gram Panchayat of Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete Wellness Center of New Grama Rs.18,41,907/- Rs.12,82,463/-

56. W.P.No.28796 of 2024 Sachivalayam Complex at B.T.Palli Rs.4,53,353/- Village of Surabhi GP of Chakrayapeta Mandal.

57. W.P.No.29012 of 2024

58. W.P.No.28980 of 2024 12 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch Providing New Pump Set its and accessories for Two Habitations E.Kothapalli Village of Pulivendula Mandal. Providing CC Pavement from Km 6/124 6/161 & (Nallapureddypalli Village Limits) CC Patchwork Pulivendula- Ambakapalli-Murarichintala Road YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall Grama Sachivalayam premises at Rs.10,45,605/- Rs.16,93,265.32

59. W.P.No28851 of 2024 B.T.Palli of Surabhi (V & GP) of Rs.12,61,210/-

60. W.P.No.28804 of 2024 Chakrayapeta Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Completion of incomplete items in RBK Building and Construction of Sump, Septic Tank of New Grama Sachivalayam Complex at B.T.Palli Village of Surabhi GP of Chakrayapeta Mandal. Providing Pipe Drain (UGD) at Rs.4,49,201/-

61. W.P.No.28850 of 2024 Paidipalem village of Simhadripuram Rs.26,61,805/- Mandal. Augmentation of PWS Scheme

62. W.P.No.28978 of 2024 Karnapapayapalli Village of Lingala Rs.16,59,217/-

63. W.P.No.28273 of 2024 Mandal. Construction of Compound Wall Burial Ground in Kota (V) of Meedipentla GP of Vemula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Rythu Barosa Kendram Rs.24,63,671/-

64. W.P.No.28199 of 2024 at Vemula Village and GP of Vemula Rs.14,48,437/- Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Compound Wall

65. W.P.No.28197 of 2024 Grama Sachivalayam Complex at Rs.12,99,177/- E.Kothapalli Village and GP of

66. W.P.No.25106 of 2025 13 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch Pulivendula Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. Construction of Wall to Grama Sachivalayam Building in Alireddypalli Village and Gram Panchayat, Vempalli Mandal, YSR District. Construction of Retaining Wall (Cantilever Type) at Building outside gravel filling, dismantling of old Rs.10,03,582/-

67. W.P.No.13016 of 2024 buildings, preparation work for old Rs.49,68,849/- building site near Government School at Mandal Mini Secretariat Complex at Pulivendula, YSR District.

5. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they executed the aforesaid respective works as per the Agreements entered into, with the respondents, and the respondent authorities examined and scrutinized the same, and made entries in the M-Book, but the respondent authorities are not taking steps to release the amounts to the Writ Petitioners. Though the Writ Petitioners approached the respondent authorities on multiple occasions, requesting payment of pending bills amount, the authorities are not releasing the amounts due to them. According to the Writ Petitioners, having executed the works satisfactorily, within the prescribed time, non- payment of the bills amount is arbitrary and unjustified, and the in payment is causing severe financial hardship, 14 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petitions seeking appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amounts.

6. Respondent No.10-the Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement, Vijayawada, filed counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No.19791 of 2024, denying the contents of the Writ affidavit, inter alia contending that pursuant to the Orders of this respondent, vide Memo No.0215/V&E/Engg./2025-2, dated 03.04.2025, Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kadapa had undertaken inquiry in respect of works sanctioned under the PADA (Pulivendula Area Development Authority) Programme. It is further contended that out of 4,935 works sanctioned under the said programme, 3,510 works were executed. During initial phase of inquiry, 279 works were taken up randomly for investigation and an interim report in respect thereof was submitted to this respondent on 24.10.2025. (b) It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that during the course of inquiry, serious irregularities were noticed in 92 works, warranting proposals for recovery of amount to a tune of Rs.8.95 crores. The irregularities included – claims made towards agreement items that were found unexecuted during the field verification, submission of false information regarding existing 15 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch commitments and turnover, inflation of turnover figures, and production of fabricated and forged experience certificates for securing tenders in violation of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003. Thereafter, in order to facilitate a comprehensive examination of the remaining executed works under the PADA Programme, further instructions were issued vide Memo No.0215/V&E/Engg./2025, dated 01.04.2026. (c) It is further stated that the Vigilance Inquiry is independent of the statutory and administrative functions of the executing Departments relating to the scrutiny, processing, and release of payments, and this respondent had neither issued any direction, restraining the competent authorities from considering the claim of the Contractors who executed the works nor advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking an appropriate decision in accordance with applicable Rules. It is further stated that the findings, if any, of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, are only advisory and recommendatory in nature, and are placed before the competent authorities for such action as may be deemed appropriate in accordance with law. In the event any irregularity warranting recovery is noticed subsequently, it is always open to the competent authorities to 16 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot attribute the alleged non-release of payments to any action or omission on the part of this respondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Perused the entire material available on record.

8. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent authorities assigned the respective contract works, as mentioned supra, to the respective Writ Petitioners. Grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that though they executed the said contract works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities are not releasing the payments covered under the bills that were submitted by the Writ Petitioners for the amounts spent by them for executing the respective works.

9. Many of the subject Writ Petitions were instituted in the years 2024 and 2025, and some of them in the month of February,

2026. As per Rule 12 (i) (a) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, every respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter 17 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent. Despite adjourning the Writ Petitions from time to time for filing counter-affidavits by the respondents, the counter-affidavits have not been filed within the stipulated period of 120 days as per the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court is constrained to proceed with the Writ Petitions basing on the material available on record.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning submits that during the period from 2019 to 2024, certain developmental works were executed under the erstwhile PADA, and subsequently, the PADA was closed by Government in the year 2024.

11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that even according to the respondents, there is no dispute with regard to execution of the respective works by the Writ Petitioners, and the Writ Petitioners’ entitlement for the net amount. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chef General Manager & Ors.1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: 18 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch (paragraph No.8) “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, it not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”

12. It is also pertinent to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Others2 wherein it is held as under: (paragraph Nos.100 and 101) “100. The High Courts’ exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400 2 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969. 19 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.”

13. Further, in Kashmir Wood Products v. Verinag Development Authority and Others3, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir held as under: (paragraph No.8) “8. It is astonishing to note that despite there being no dispute as regards the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have sit over the matter for the last more than six years and they have not released the payment in favour of the petitioner. If the requisite funds were not available with the respondents, they had no business to allot the work to the petitioner and if in spite of financial constraints, the respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.” Since, in the case on hand, the amounts payable are admitted and undisputed, non-payment thereof amounts arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, and hence, the Writ Petitions are maintainable. 3 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814. 20 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch

14. The only contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader is that a Vigilance Inquiry was initiated basing on the complaints received with regard to some irregularities that occurred in execution of PADA works, and that the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement), Vijayawada is conducting inquiry and the Inquiry Report is awaited. According to the respondents, since Vigilance Inquiry is contemplated and report is awaited, the respective amounts payable to the Writ Petitioners have been kept pending. On this aspect, a perusal of the counter- affidavit filed by the Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement, Vijayawada goes to show that the Vigilance Inquiry is independent of the statutory and administrative functions of the executing Departments, relating to scrutiny, processing and release of payments and that, the said authority had not issued any direction restraining the authorities competent, from considering the claim of the Contractors, and it had not advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking appropriate decision in regard to the claims. From the said counter-affidavit, it is clear that in the event, any irregularity, warranting recovery is noticed subsequently, it is open to the competent authorities to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. In regard to pendency of Vigilance Inquiry, it is also pertinent to refer to a decision rendered by Coordinate 21 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch Bench of this Court, in Katta Chinna Kotaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh4 wherein, this Court held as under: “The Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions held that when there is non-payment of the undisputed bills, the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2019) 16 SCC 794], following the judgment in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [2004 (3) SCC 553]. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated 13.03.2019 are admitted by the respondents and forwarded for payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. Hence, the authorities are stopped from stating that the bills are submitted without executing the works. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.8,08,828/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

15. In the case on hand, the only ground for not releasing the amounts to the Writ Petitioners/Contractors is that the authorities are awaiting Vigilance Inquiry Report. As held in the aforesaid decision, mere pending receipt of the Vigilance Inquiry Report is not a ground to withhold the payments. Even according to 4 MANU/AP/0721/2022. 22 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch the counter-affidavit filed by the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada, the Writ Petitioners cannot attribute the alleged non-release of payments to any action or omission on the part of the said respondent, and that the said respondent had neither issued any direction, restraining the competent authorities from considering the Writ Petitioner’s claim nor advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking appropriate decision in accordance with the applicable Rules. When an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the respondents that the contracts in question were obtained either by fraud or misrepresentation. When once the respondent No.10, in clear terms stated that the action or omission on the part of this respondent cannot be attributed for non-release of payments, there is no other reason for the respondent authorities in not releasing the amounts in favour of the Writ Petitioners. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, mere pending receipt of the Vigilance Inquiry Report is not a 23 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch ground for withholding the amounts for the works which are admittedly executed by the Writ Petitioners.

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others5 held as under: (paragraph Nos.3 and 4) “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid Order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a Writ Petition being Writ Civil No.25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated

02.05.2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the Writ Petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553]).

4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest @ 6% p.s. may also be awarded.” 5 (2019) 16 SCC 794. 24 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch

17. Apart from this, when State or State instrumentalities act in an arbitrary manner or fail to act within time, the Writ Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners submit that in respect of other Districts, the Government authorities have released the amounts in favour of the respective Contractors, who executed the works, but in respect of the District in which the subject works were executed, the respondent authorities withheld the amounts without there being any justifiable reason. This Court is not inclined to go into this aspect.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in respect of the bills for the works executed by the respective Writ Petitioners up to Rs.25.00 lakhs, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the said amount to the respective Writ Petitioners within a period of Four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In respect of the bills for the other works executed by the respective Writ Petitioners which are above Rs.25.00 lakhs, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the said amount to the respective Writ Petitioners within a period of Eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event of 25 SRK, J W.P.No.179 of 2025 & Batch any irregularity noticed in the Vigilance Inquiry Report, warranting recovery, it is open to the authority concerned to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of these Writ Petitions. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 31st July, 2026. DNB/DRK