Jmj Bore Wells Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

JMJ BORE WELLS, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR D SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/O. D APPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. SHANTINAGAR, GANDHIGRAMMAM, CHODAVARAM (M), ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, PINCODE 531036.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION (RWS AND S) DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, R.W.S. CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶17

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION,

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT.

¶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 topleased to issue a any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amounts of Rs.2,17,028/vide M Book No. 152/A /RWS/2005, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Providing safe drinking water to 58 habitations covered in 24 Grampanchayats in Kotauratla Mandal (Source Drilling of 4 Nos of 165 mm dia bore wells), vide Technical Saction Tsr No. 106/2017-18, dated 07.02.2017 of CE RWS and S Vijayawada under NTR Sujala Padhakam is questioned, as the same is Olegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amounts of Rs.2,17,028/- vide M Book No 152/A /RWS/2005 with interest @24 percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶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 please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs.2,17,028/- vide M Book No. 152/A /RWS/2005 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Providing safe drinking water to 58 habitations covered in 24 Grampanchayats in Kotauratla Mandal (Source: Drilling of 4 Nos of 165 mm dia bore wells), vide Technical Saction No. Tsr No. 106/2017-18, dated 07.02.2017 of CE RWS&S, Vijayawada under NTR Sujala Padhakam, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA

¶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, Smt. M.Sumalatha, 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.

¶33

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.2,17,028/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., providing safe drinking water to 58 habitations covered in 24 Gram Panchayats in Kotauratla Mandal, vide Technical Sanction No.Tsr No.106/2017-18 dated 07.02.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶34

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Anakapalli – 7^th respondent dated 28.03.2026.

¶35

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.2,12,820/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

¶36

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

¶37

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,12,820/-. 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:

¶38

“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.

¶39

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

¶40

Page 4 of 5

¶41

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.”

¶42

Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Anakapalli – 7^th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.2,12,820/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty 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.

¶43

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

¶44

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date: 01.04.2026 SNI

Page 5 of 5

226

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI