Disposed¶49

V L C for Execution of Works v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Aug 2025WP/1432/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus for payment of contract dues refused; writ disposed as admitted amount already paid by Gram Panchayat; disputed/balance claim not adjudicable in Article 226 proceedings; liberty to pursue recovery remedy under law; contractor; Pucca internal roads, drainage, culverts; Convergence Funds; 14th Finance Commission; MGNREGS; Pondalur/Pondaluru Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Kadapa District; Work IDs 117154112027080019/20/21; no costs.

What did the court decide?

No monetary relief; no mandamus issued for any disputed or balance amount. Petitioners given liberty to pursue their remedy for recovery of any claimed amount under law. Writ petition disposed of with no costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. ¶49

V L C for Execution of Works Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in not paying the amounts payable to the petitioners despite execution of the three works (Work ID Nos. 117154112027080019, 117154112027080020, 117154112027080021) is irregular/arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21, entitling the petitioners to a writ of mandamus directing release of the balance amount with interest at 18% p.a. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

The writ petition could be disposed of in view of the clear and categorical admission made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

Since the respondents clearly and categorically stated that the admitted amount has already been paid, any disputed or balance amount claimed by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings, nor can a writ of mandamus be issued in that regard.

¶48

Key takeaways

If the petitioners are still aggrieved regarding payment of any further amount after completion of the works, they are at liberty to pursue their remedy for recovery of the claimed amount, if any, by invoking the jurisdiction available to them under law.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda J. (20.08.2025), Writ Petition No. 1432 of 2020: A contractor firm and its president sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 directing the respondents to release and pay the balance amount, with interest at 18% p.a., for three completed works (Work ID Nos. 117154112027080019, 117154112027080020, 117154112027080021 — Pucca internal roads/streets, drainage system and culverts under Convergence Funds at Pondalur Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Kadapa District), alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21. The works had been measured and certified by the Executive Engineer (4th respondent), but respondents 8 to 10 had not released the contract amount. In counter, respondents 8–10 admitted that the entire admitted amount had been paid (net payable Rs. 5,65,716/-; cheques totalling Rs. 7,30,812/-). Held: once the respondents categorically stated that the admitted amount stood paid, any disputed or balance amount could not be adjudicated in writ proceedings and no mandamus could issue in that regard; the petitioners were left at liberty to pursue recovery of any claimed amount under law. Writ petition disposed of; no costs; pending interlocutory applications closed.

¶1

::1::

¶2

APHC010020052020

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3329]

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 1432/2020

¶8

Between:

¶9

V L C FOR EXECUTION OF WORKS, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, PUTCHAKAYALA VENKATA RAMANA, PONDALUR VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶10

PUTCHAKAYALA VENKATA RAMANA,, S/O. VENKATAIAH AGED 38 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O 1-114 KALUVA STREET, PONDALUR VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER(S)

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶15

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER PR CIRCLE, , KADAPA, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRI DIVISION, RAJAMPET, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶17

DY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, KODUR, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶18

DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, , KADAPA DISTRICT AT KADAPA

¶19

DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, RAJAMPET, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶20

THE EXTENSION OFFICER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND

¶21

¶22

RURAL DEVELOPMENT, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.,

¶23

1. SPECIAL OFFICER, PONDALURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶24

1. PONDALURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY-CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PONDALURU VILLAGE, PENAGALURU MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

¶27

This Court made the following ORDER :-

¶28

1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

¶29

“to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WPIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in not paying amounts payable to the petitioner in spite of execution of works ie., Work ID Nos. 11715411202708 019, 117154112027080020, 117154112027080021 for providing Pucca Internal Roads/ Streets including Drainage System and Culverts within a Village under convergence Funds at different locations of Pondalur Village, Penagaluru Man ial, Kadapa District as per the directions and guidelines of ls respondent, as irregular, arbitrary, violative of articles 14, and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release and pay the balance amount payable to the petitioners with interest at 18 P.a from due dates till payment is made.....”

¶30

The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners were awarded a contract for the construction of Pucca Internal Roads/Streets, including the Drainage System and Culverts, within a village under the Convergence Funds at different locations of Pondalur Village, Penagaluru Mandal, Kadapa District, as per the directions and guidelines of the 1^st respondent and consequential proceedings.

¶31

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, pursuant to the award of the contract in their favour, the petitioners completed three works in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which were duly measured and certified by the 4^th respondent i.e., Executive Engineer. However, even though the works were certified as completed by the respondents, for one reason or the other, the respondent Nos. 8 to 10 have not released the said award contract amount. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents filed a counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 8, 9 and 10 wherein it is categorically stated that the entire amount, as admitted by the 10^th respondent i.e., the Pondaluru Grampanchayat, has been paid as under:–

¶34

“ It is respectfully submitted that in response to the averments made in paras 3 & 7 this answering respondent submits that the administrative sanction was given by the District Collector, Erst while Kadapa District, and the construction of Pucca Internal Roads/streets including Drainage system and culverts within the village under convergence funds, which were executed by the Special officer of the Pondaluru Gram Panchayat, Penagaluru Mandal under 14th Finance to be Commission which are to be processed by the Grama Panchayat and bills under MGNRGES Grant are

¶35

¶36

processed by the EEPR (Executive Engineer Panchayat Raj) Division, Rajampet Mandal, Annamaya District through Fund Transfer Order (FTO). The Pondaluru Gram Panchayat paid the Total amounts relating to the said works as shown in the table below:-

¶37

S.No.	^{Work Ids and by the} Gram composition to be paid Panchayat & MONREGS respectively	Total Amount of Work (Rs)	Statutory deductions (Rs)	Net amount payable (Rs)	Amount paid on
1	117154112027080021 30%- 14 Finance commission and MGNREGS: 70%	1,31,136/-	2,623/-	1,28,513/-	Amount paid on 01/2019
2	117154112027080019 50% 14 Finance commission and MGNREGS: 50%	2,84,344/-	5,687/-	2,78,657/-	Amount paid on 01/2019
3	117154112027080020 30% 14 Finance commission and MGNREGS: 70%	1,61,782/-	3,236/-	1,58,546/-	Amount paid on 04/2020
	Total	5,77,262/-	11,546/-	5,65,716/-
	Amount paid to the Account number of Puchakayala Venkata Ramana	Account number: 36538579307 Bank IFSC Code: SBIN 0009080

¶38

It is respectfully submitted that, this

¶39

answering respondent has processed all the amounts for the execution of the said works to the account of the contractor and there is no due left from Grama Panchayat. It is pertinent to mention here that MGNRGES, Pondalur Gram

¶40

¶41

Panchayat through the joint account of Special officer, 9th respondent herein and this answering respondent through the Credit of EEPR division paid the amount to the contractor by way of cheques to his account number as cited below.

¶42

S.No.	cheque No.	Amount paid (Rs)
1	747056	Rs.1,99,000/-
2	747057	Rs.1,99,000/-
3	747059	Rs.3,32,812/-
	Total	7,30,812/-

¶43

It is further stated that no amount is pending for payment by the 10^th respondent, i.e., the Gram Panchayat.

¶44

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 9 and the learned Standing counsel for the Grampanchayat appearing for the respondent No.10 and perused the material available on record.

¶45

After considering the facts and circumstances stated supra,

¶46

this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be disposed of in view of the clear and categorical admission made by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is specifically contended

¶47

¶48

by the respondents that the amount admitted by the 10th respondent, i.e., the Gram Panchayat, has already been paid to the petitioners, as extracted above. Once the respondents have clearly and categorically stated that the admitted amount has been already paid, any disputed or balance amount as claimed by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated in the present writ proceedings, nor a writ of mandamus can be issued in that regard. Accordingly, if the petitioners are still aggrieved regarding the payment of any further amount after completion of the works, the petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedy for recovery of the claimed amount, if any, by invoking the jurisdiction available to them under law.

¶49

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶50

As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall

¶51

stand closed.

¶52

_____________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶53

20.08.2025 klk

¶54

¶55