DISTRICT v. PARCHUR, BAPATIA DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM DISTRICT

#1. HABITATIONS WORKS COMMITTEE, REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN, R. SRIKANTH BABU S/O SEETHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O D.NO. 1-15, POLURU VILLAGE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND

#1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

#2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARIAT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARY, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

#3. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE

#4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

#5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, PARCHUR, BAPATIA DISTRICT (OLD PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the 1st and Part bill for an amount of Rs. 4,95,328/- to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e. Construction of BC Community Hall in Poluru (V) of Yaddanapudi Mandal under SDF Grant vide agreement No. /2018-19 dated 31-01-2019 as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, against to the principles of natural justice, contrary to law and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the bill amount of Rs 4,95,328/- with interest 12percentage per annum to the petitioner in respect of execution of aforementioned work forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to pay the 1st and Part bill for an amount of Rs. 4,95,328/- to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e. Construction of BC Community Hall in Poluru (V) of Yaddanapudi Mandal under SDF Grant vide agreement No. /2018-19 dated 31-01-2019, pending disposal of the above writ petition in the interest of-2- justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

#1. B NIRUPAMA GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

#2. GP FOR REVENUE

#3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ::ORDER :: The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.4,95,328/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. Construction of BC Community Hall in Poluru (V) of Yaddanapudi Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.

#2. Heard Sri Smt. B. Nirupama Gayathri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents.

#3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI PIU Division, Bapatla – respondent No.4.

#4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It further indicates that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.4,95,768/- and after recoveries i.e. Rs.58,708/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.4,37,060/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the written instructions.

#5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.4,37,060/-. 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.”. 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

#6. Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.4,37,060/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within two (02) 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: 30.03.2026 TVN ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI 237 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31954 of 2025 Date: 30.03.2026 TVN