Chandragiri Sivareddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEPARTMENT (R.D-II), SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522237

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.- 522237

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, D. NO. 12-47, PVS ICON, PATHURU CROSS ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P.- 522501

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.523001

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.- 523001

¶18

THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANNEPALLI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.- 523328

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

TURAKAPALEM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, TURAKAPALEM PANCHAYAT, MANNEPALLI MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, A.P.- 523328

¶21

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶22

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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction the part of the respondents herein not releasing the total bills amount worth of Rs.33,28,274/- (Rupees Thirty three lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred and seventy four only) with interest @ 12percent p.a., as per the Judgment of this Hon'ble Court In W.P. No. 19525/2021 (W.P. No. 10038/2021 and Batch) dated 05.10.2021 under grant of MGNREGS to the petitioner till today after completion of execution of formation of approach roads with Gravel surface under MGNRES in convergence with PRED in Turakapalem Gramapanchayat in Mannepalli Mandal Prakasam Dist. and causing heavy loss with Interest even though the work was completed within time as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents to release and pay the total bills amount of Rs.33,28,274/(Rupees Thirty three lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred and seventy four only) with Interest under grant of MGNREGS forthwith to the petitioner and pass such

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶24

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 release and pay the total bills amount worth of Rs.33,28,274/- (Rupees Thirty three lakhs twenty eight thousand two hundred and seventy four only) with Interest under grant of MGNREGS forthwith to the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass such

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶29

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

The Court made the following order:

¶32

Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning for the respondents 1 to 3 and 5, Ms. Usha, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the 4^th respondent and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 6 and 7.

¶33

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.33,28,274/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 1) Gravelling the road from Turakapalem to Ramanalavaripalem Road in Turakapalem GP of Tallur Mandal and 2) Gravelling the road from Turakapalem to Daramvaripalem road in Turakapalem GP of Talllur Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole – 5^th respondent, dated 23.03.2026.

¶35

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.33,28,274/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

¶36

Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.33,28,274/-. 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

¶38

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

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 furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole – 5^th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.33,28,274/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand Two Hundred and Seventy Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, subject to statutory deductions, if any, within four (04) 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: 31.03.2026 SNI

Page 5 of 5

219

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI