D. v. Dhanunjaya Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SUB- DIVISION, KAMALAPURAM, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S SECTION, PENDLIMARRI, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 tomay be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction,

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing an amount of Rs.9,70,625/- to the petitioner for the execution of works. Vide Agreement No. Nil/2023-24, dated 24.02.2024 86 Vide Agreement No. Nil/2023-24, dated 24.02.2024, respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at 18percent per annum and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs.9,70,625/- to the petitioner for the execution of works, Vide Agreement No. Nil/2023-24, dated 24.02.2024 & Vide Agreement No. Nil/2023-24, dated 24.02.2024, respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.BHARATH KUMAR PUDUCHERI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶27

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

Heard, Sri Bharath Kumar Puducheri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents.

¶30

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.9,70,625/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed i.e., 1) Providing of CC Drain with cover slab from GLSR to P.Bommaiah House and other Streets in Chennamrajupalli HW, H/o. P.Sangatipalli of Pendlimarri Mandal and 2)

¶31

Page 3 of 5

¶32

Providing of CC Drain with cover slab from P.Bommaiah House to R.Venkataramana House and other streets in Chennamrajupalli HW, H/o. P.Sangatipalli of Pendlimarri Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶33

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Kadapa – 3^rd respondent dated 31.03.2026.

¶34

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.9,58,832/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions of Rs.1,13,086/-, is Rs.8,45,746/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

¶36

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.8,45,746/-. 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:

¶37

“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.”

¶38

Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Kadapa, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to

¶39

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

release the amount of Rs.8,45,746/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Forty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.

¶42

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶43

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date: 01.04.2026 SNI

Page 5 of 5

227

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI