Disposed

Noti Bhargav v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/23338/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A civil contractor executed desilting works under two agreements in 2020 and completed them satisfactorily, but the authorities withheld payment of Rs. 6,75,867 for two years despite finalising the bills. The Executive Engineer admitted the contractor's entitlement to the amount, attributing non-payment to lack of funds in the NIDHI portal. The High Court held that non-payment of admitted dues constitutes arbitrary action and a writ petition is maintainable even where an alternative remedy exists. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court directed the respondents to pay the admitted amount within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 6,75,867/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from receipt of the order.

Noti Bhargav Vs The State of Andhra… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010427452026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3327] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 23338/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

NOTI BHARGAV, S/O RAVINDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O ALTHURTHI VILLAGE, PODALAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

A N D

¶11

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AP SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522238.

¶12

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

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524003.

¶14

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, NELLORE CENTRAL DIVISION NELLORE, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT - 524003.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER CADA, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, HANUMANPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520003. ...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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.6,75,867/in total due for the last Two years even after finalizing the bills,

¶17

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶18

¶19

payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of works i.e., 1. Desilting to Surayapalem Branch Channel in Surayapalem Village of Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement no 287 O and M /DN/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020, 2. Desilting to Thatiparthi branch channel in Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement no 286 O and M /DN/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020 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. 6,75,867/- towards the works executed by the petitioner along with 12percentage interest per annum and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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. 6,75,867/- in total due for the last Two years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of works i.e Desilting to Surayapalem Branch Channel in Surayapalem Village of Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement no 287 O & M /DN/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020, 2. Desilting to Thatiparthi branch channel in Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement no 286 O and M /DN/2020-21 dated 11.11.2020 forthwith, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

¶26

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶29

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

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.

¶32

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

¶33

“….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 an amount of Rs.6,75,867/- in total, due for the last two years even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of execution of works i.e. (i) Desilting to Surayapalem Branch Channel in Surayapalem Village of Podalakur Mandal of SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement No.287 O & M/DN/2020-21, dated 11.11.2020; (ii) Desilting to Thatiparthi Branch Channel in Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement No.286 O & M/DN/2020-21, dated 11.11.2020 duly approved by the respondents, as illegal and arbitrary, and consequently, direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.6,75,867/towards the works executed by the petitioner along with 12% interest per annum and to pass such other order or orders…”

¶34

The petitioner claims to be a Civil Contractor. The Commissioner CADA vide Proceedings COM/CAD/O&M/6^th CAD/1123/2020-21, dated 18.09.2020 granted administrative approval for the works of (i) Desilting to Surayapalem Branch Channel in Surayapalem Village of Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District

¶35

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶36

¶37

vide Agreement No.287 O & M/DM/2020-21, dated 11.11.2020, (ii) Desilting to Thatiparthi Branch Channel in Thatiparthi Village, Podalakur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District vide Agreement No.286 O & M/DN/2020-21, dated 11.11.2020, and the respondent No.4 entrusted

¶38

these works to the petitioner on Tender basis; that the petitioner executed the said works and completed the same within stipulated period; that the Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the work, recorded in M-Book, and issued pass order for clearance of the amount.

¶39

(b) It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he executed the entire works within time, an amount of Rs.6,75,867/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

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶41

¶42

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, Nellore Central Division, Nellore-4^th respondent, submits that the petitioner executed the works allotted as per the agreements, and the petitioner is entitled to amount as claimed by him. He further submits that the bills could not be uploaded in NIDHI Portal due to non-availability of funds, and after getting sufficient budget, the bill will be uploaded in the NIDHI Portal for arranging payment to the petitioner. The written instructions are placed on record.

¶43

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)

¶44

“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

¶45

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400.

¶46

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶47

¶48

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.”

¶49

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

¶50

SRK, J W.P.No.23338 of 2026

¶51

¶52

petitioner within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of

¶53

a copy of this order.

¶54