Sri. Boddepally Srinadh, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT522237

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER, CADA (COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY), HANUMANPET, VIJAYAWADA - 520001

¶16

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT -520002.

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CIRCLE, B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT MAINTENANCE DIVISION,

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

NARASANNAPET -532421.

¶20

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (W.R. DEPT) B.R.R. VAMSADHARA PROJECT MAINTENANCE DIVISION, NARASANNAPET -532421

¶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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not releasing the payments for the work executed by the petitioner under the Scheme O and M (Operation and Maintenance) Repairs Providing Execution of Works i) Painting to Hand rails of road bridge at Gotta Barrage, Hiramandalam with an estimated cost of Rs.4.60 Lakhs through the Agreement No.43EE/2021-22 and after completion of the work the 6th respondent measured the work and entered the same into Measurement Book and the work is valued for an amount of Rs.3,35,739/- ii) Desilting of left main canal between Km.7.80 to Km.8.90 in Akkarapalli Village limits of Hiramandalam Mandal through the Agreement No.42E/2021-22 for an amount of Rs. 8,94,702/- iii) Desilting and Improvements to 20R Distributary Branch channels in Gotivada WUA limits in Jalumuru Mandal of Srikakulam District through the Agreement No.03E/2022- 23 for an amount of Rs.6,31,435/- iv) Desilting and improvements 22R to 23R distributor and branch channels in Jalumuru WUA limits in Jalumuru Mandal of Srikakulam District through the Agreement No.04EE/2022-23 for an amount of Rs.6,43,207/- v) Repairs damaged shuttering arrangement for N.G. Escape at Km 2.800 of Bhyri open head channel near Naira village of Srikakulam District through the Agreement No.32EE/2020-21 for an amount of Rs.5,79,060/vi) De-Silting of Vootabatti in Durbalapuram Village limits of Hiramandalam Mandal through the Agreement No.41 EE/2021-22 for an amount of Rs.4,00,290/- vii) De-Silting of 25R Distributary near Tilaru Village of Kotabommali through the Agreement No.44EE/2021-22 for an amount of Rs.6,29,507/- viii) De-Silting of Strengthening of canal banks between Km 3.00 to Km 3.600 of 10R distributory near srimukhalingam village Jalumuru Mandal through the Agreement No.05EE/2022-23 for an amount of Rs.1,20,276/-and totaling an amount of Rs.42,34,216/- and

¶23

Page 3 of 5

¶24

with 18percent interest is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and un constitution and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs.42,34,216/- with 18percent Per annum to the petitioner in respect of the execution of aforementioned work forthwith and to pass such

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶26

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

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶28

1.K.S.G. PADMAVATHI

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶30

1.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

¶31

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶32

The Court made the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs.42,34,216/payable to the petitioner for execution of 8 separate works in pursuance of 8 separate agreements, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Heard Smt.K.S.G. Padmavathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Satish, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, for the respondents.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to Ex.P1 agreements, the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works as per the timelines stipulated in the agreements and the same

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

was verified by the respective authorities. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

¶39

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri S.Satish, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, appearing for the respondents, submitted the written instructions furnished by the 6^th respondent-Executive Engineer, W.R. Dept., B.R.R. Vamsadhara Project, Maintenance Division, Narasannapeta, vide Letter No.EE/MTC/N.Peta/AB/Supdt./Court Case/144M, dated 04.03.2026, wherein it is stated that the net amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned works is Rs.39,34,831/(Rs.3,35,739/-+ Rs.8,94,702/+ Rs.3,61,435/+ Rs.6,43,207/- + Rs.4,00,290/- + Rs.6,20,057/- + Rs.1,00,341/- + Rs.5,79,060/-) and the above bills were not uploaded in the portal due to lack of L.O.C and soon after releasing the LOC, the bill will be processed in NIDHI portal.

¶40

Learned counsel undertakes to pay the deficit court fee of Rs.700/within one week and file a memo to that effect. The same is recorded.

¶41

Thus, as seen from the averments made in the written instructions of respondent No.6, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for the aforementioned amount. 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:

¶42

“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

¶43

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

¶44

Page 5 of 5

¶45

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

Given the averments made in the written instructions of 6^th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.39,34,831/- (Rupees Thirty Nine Lakhs Thirty Four Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty One only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, subject to statutory deductions, if any, within three (03) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Insofar as the interest component is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court or appropriate forum, given the directions in W.A.No.60 of 2025 dated 11.02.2025. No order as to costs.

¶47

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

¶48

__________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶49

PVD

Sri. Boddepally Srinadh, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Boddepally Srinadh, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A. Rama Chandra Reddy Vs P. Mohan Reddy

Battu Venkata Ramaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pittu Jayalakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P v L Narasimha Swami Vs the State of Ap

Sanapala Thavitayya Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

S Arundhathi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh