M Deva Dheeraj Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M DEVA DHEERAJ REDDY, S/O.M SUKUMAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. FLAT NO.504, MARUTI GRAND APARTMENT, TEACHERS COLONY, MUSUNURU, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SPECIAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , W.R.D., NELLORE CENTRAL DIVISION, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶17

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, , AP CFMS OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶18

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶19

Page 2 of 4

¶20

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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs.5,41,739/- vide M Book No. 235 NCC/2019-20, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e.. Removal of weed growth from No 7, 8, 9, 10 Sluice Channels and its Irrigation Channels of Allur large tank in Singapet Village in Allur (M) of SPSR Nellore District, vide Agreement No. 302/DN/2020-21, dated 16.11.2020 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amounts of Rs.5,41,739/- vide M Book No. 235 NCC/2019-20 with interest @24 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass such

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶22

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 for payment of amount of Rs.5,41,739/- vide M Book No. 235 NCC/2019-20 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Removal of weed growth from No 7, 8, 9, 10 Sluice Channels and its Irrigation Channels of Allur large tank in Singapet Village in Allur (M) of SPSR Nellore District, vide Agreement No. 302/DN/2020-21, dated 16.11.2020, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass such

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.BATHALA RAMESH

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

¶27

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs.5,41,739/- payable to the

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

petitioner for execution of work in pursuance of agreement No.302/DN/202021, dated 16.11.2020, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, for the respondents.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the aforementioned agreement, the petitioner has executed the work, „Removal of weed growth from Nos.7, 8, 9 and 10 Sluice Channels and its Irrigation Channels of Allur large tank in Singapet Village in Allur (M) of SPSR Nellore District”, as per the timelines stipulated in the agreement and the same was verified by the respective authorities. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

¶35

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri S. Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, appearing for the respondents, submitted the written instructions furnished by the 4^th respondent-Executive Engineer, WRD, Nellore Central Division, vide Letter No.EE/NCD/NLSa/AB/A.3/O&M Court Case/ dated 08.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the amount of bill is Rs.5,41,739/-. It was further stated that the bills could not be uploaded in NIDHI portal due to lack of Budget and soon after obtaining Budget Release Order, the bill will be uploaded in NIDHI Portal.

¶36

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to interest. He placed reliance on the order, dated 11.02.2025, in W.A.No.60 of 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

¶37

Thus, as seen from the instructions of the 4^th respondent, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner‟s entitlement to the aforementioned amount. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways

¶38

Page 4 of 4

¶39

Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors¹ , it was held at Para No.8 as under:

¶40

“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.”

¶41

Given the instructions of the 4^th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.5,41,739/(Rupees Five Lakhs Forty One Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, subject to deductions, if any, within two (02) months from the receipt of the copy of this order. Insofar as the interest component is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court or appropriate forum, given the directions in W.A.No.60 of 2025 dated 11.02.2025. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶43

PVD

¶44

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400

M Deva Dheeraj Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Deva Dheeraj Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs P. Mohan Reddy

Battu Venkata Ramaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pittu Jayalakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P v L Narasimha Swami Vs the State of Ap

Sanapala Thavitayya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri. Boddepally Srinadh, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh