Allowed

Kapa Radha Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/20026/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, in a writ petition, examined complaints by a civil contractor regarding the non-payment of dues totaling Rs. 14,91,457/- for completed maintenance works. Highlighting the admitted liability by respondent authorities and citing Supreme Court jurisprudence on admitted dues not requiring alternative remedies, the Court directed the authorities to release the net amount within two months.

What did the court decide?

The respondents directed to pay the admitted amount/net amount to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Kapa Radha Krishna Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010370902026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327]

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 20026/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

KAPA RADHA KRISHNA, S/O K PENCHALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHINTAPALEM VILLAGE, KALUVOYA MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMRAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRI. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, S.S.L.C S.B CIRCLE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524003.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S.S.L.C S.B DIVISION NO.3, KOTHUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524004.

¶15

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, S.S.L.C S.B DIVISION NO.4, PODALAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT – 524345

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 action of the respondents in non-payment an amount of Rs.14,91,457/- in total due for the past one year even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of works i.e., 1. Maintenance of Inspection Track for Effective Water Regulation on 1R Major of KR Left Canal in Podalakur

¶18

SRK, J W.P.No.20026 of 2026

¶19

¶20

Mandal of SPSR Nellore District 2. Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 12.000 to KM 15.000 of KR Left Cabak, 3. Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 15.500 to KM 18.000 of KR Left Cabak duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and violative of fundamental rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.14,91,457/- towards the works executed by the petitioner along with 12 PERCENT interest per annum and to pass

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 the amount of Rs. 14,91,457/- in total due for the past one year even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of works i.e., “1. Maintenance of Inspection Track for Effective Water Regulation on 1R Major of KR Left Canal in Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District” 2. “Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 12.000 to KM 15.000 of KR Left Cabak”, 3. “Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 15.500 to KM 18.000 of KR Left Cabak” forthwith pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶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

SRK, J W.P.No.20026 of 2026

¶30

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Irrigation and Command Area Development, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning.

¶33

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

¶34

“….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 non-payment of amount of Rs.14,91,457/- in total, due for the past one year even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after successful completion of works i.e. 1. Maintenance of Inspection Track for effective Water Regulation on 1R Major of KR Left Canal in Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, 2. Maintenance of Inspector Track from KM 12.000 to KM 15.000 of KR Left Canal, 3. Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 15.500 to KM 18.000 of KR Left Canal duly approved by the respondents, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, to direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.14,91,457/- towards the works executed by the petitioner along with interest at 12% per annum, and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶35

The petitioner claims to be a Civil Contractor. The petitioner was entrusted with the works of (i) Maintenance of Inspection Track for effective Water Regulation on 1R Major of KR Left Canal in Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District, (ii) Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 12.000 to KM 15.000 of KR

¶36

SRK, J W.P.No.20026 of 2026

¶37

¶38

Left Canal, and (iii) Maintenance of Inspection Track from KM 15.500 to KM 18.000 of KR Left Canal; that the petitioner executed the aforesaid works and completed the same within the stipulated period, and the respondent authorities inspected the works, recorded the same in M-Books and issued pass order for the bill amount.

¶39

(b) It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he executed the entire works within time, an amount of Rs.14,91,457/was kept pending by the respondent authorities. Even though the petitioner approached the respondent authorities on multiple occasions, requesting for payment of aforesaid pending bill amount, they are not paying the said amount. According to petitioner, having executed the works satisfactorily, within the prescribed time, nonpayment of the bill amount was arbitrary and unjustified. It was further contended that the delay in payment is causing severe financial hardship, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petition seeking appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amount.

¶40

Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and CAD, on written instructions received from the Executive Engineer, SSLC&SB, Division No.3, Kothur, Nellore-4^th respondent, submits that the petitioner executed the works allotted, and the petitioner is entitled to

¶41

SRK, J W.P.No.20026 of 2026

¶42

¶43

amount as claimed by him. He further submits that the bill could not be processed, due to lack of budget, and the same would be done upon release of the requisite budget by the Government. The written instructions are placed on record.

¶44

A perusal of the written instructions goes to show that there is no dispute with regard to execution of works and as per the respondents, they admitted that the petitioner is entitled to an amount as claimed by him. Therefore, since the amount payable to the petitioner, is admitted and undisputed, the Writ Petition is maintainable. In M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors.¹ , it was held as under: (Paragraph No.8)

¶45

“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.”

¶46

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400.

¶47

SRK, J W.P.No.20026 of 2026

¶48

¶49

A perusal of the material on record goes to show that the

¶50

respondent authorities assigned the works, as mentioned supra, to the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he executed the said works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, they are not releasing the payment covered under the bill that was submitted by the petitioner for the amount spent by him for executing the works. Therefore, having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, since, the respondent No.4 admits the works executed by the petitioner and concedes that the petitioner is entitled to the amount as claimed by him, and since, it is stated that the bill amount would be processed soon after allocation of budget from the Government, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the admitted amount/net amount to the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶51

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶52

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶53

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

¶54

11^th September, 2026. DNB

Kapa Radha Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kapa Radha Krishna v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases