Disposed¶43

Dharma Shasta Contractors v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Mar 2026WP/3939/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Contractor's Article 226 writ for release of DMF-sanctioned works bills (Measurement Books 3238-A, 3199-A, 3239-A, 3232-A, 3248-A, 3254-A); admitted monetary dues; maintainability of writ for money claim; statutory recovery; Nandyal/Banaganapalli; mandamus; Utkal Highways applied; direction to pay Rs.64,25,704/- within 5 months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondents to release Rs.64,25,704/- to the petitioner within five (05) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. ¶43

Dharma Shasta Contractors Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the respondents to release Rs.64,25,704/- to the petitioner within five (05) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶43

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' non-release of Rs.71,55,470/- payable to the petitioner for the six executed works, despite finalised bills, is illegal and arbitrary, and whether the petitioner is entitled to payment. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

On the Executive Engineer's written instructions there is no dispute regarding execution of the works and the petitioner's entitlement to Rs.64,25,704/- (gross Rs.71,55,470/- less statutory recovery of Rs.7,29,766/-); the amount is admitted and undisputed.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable; applying Utkal Highways (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400), non-payment of admitted dues may be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

¶38

Key takeaways

Writ petition disposed of directing the respondents to release Rs.64,25,704/- to the petitioner within five (05) months from receipt of a copy of the order; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Subba Reddy Satti, J., 31.03.2026) disposed of Writ Petition No. 3939 of 2025 filed by Dharma Shasta Contractors seeking release of Rs.71,55,470/- for six road/CC-road works in Banaganapalli and Owk Mandals, Nandyal District, sanctioned under District Mineral Foundation procs. dated 18.02.2024. On the written instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), PR(PIU) Division, Nandyal — admitting execution of the works, a statutory recovery of Rs.7,29,766/- and a net payable of Rs.64,25,704/-, which the petitioner's counsel endorsed — the Court held the amount admitted and undisputed and, applying M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400, held that a writ petition lies for non-payment of admitted dues. The Court directed release of Rs.64,25,704/- within five months and closed pending miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010068512025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 3939/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

DHARMA SHASTA CONTRACTORS, OFC. AT D. NO. 18-91, KONDAPETA, BANAGANAPALLE, NANDYALA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 518 124 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER APPAJU MURALIMOHAN RAO

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE STATE OF AP, DEPARTMENT OF PR AND RD RWS EFS AND T DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT MINERAL FOUNDATION, DISTRICT GOLLECTORATE, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT.

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION, BANAGANAPALLE, NANDYALA DISTRICT

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, NANDYALA, NANDYALA DISTRICT

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

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 Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents in not releasing funds amounting to Rs. 71,55,470/- even after successful completion of the work and after finalizing the bills in connection with (a) Providing internal road in BC colony of Peddarajupalem(V) of Banaganapalli(M) having Measurement Book no. 3238-A which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.251/DMF/PR/BP L/2024 dated 18.02.2024 (b) Church and Other internal streets in Main Village at G.Singavaram (V) Owk (M) of Nandyal(M), having Measurement Book no. 3199-A which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.251/DMF/PR/BPL/2024 dated 18.02.2024 of the District Collector Nandyal (c) Providing CC road and Culverts near GS Building at Thammadapalli of Banaganapalli(M) having Measurement Book no. 3239-A Providing CC Road from SC Colony Entrance to which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.251/DMF/PR/BPL/2024 dated 18.02.2024(d) colony of Hussainapuram (V) of Banaganapalli (M) having Measurement Book no. 3232-A which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.07/PR/DMF/BPL/2022 dated Providing internal CC roads with side drains in housing .02.2024 (e) Providing repairs BT road for approach Road to Cherla kotturu of Bnaganapalli (M) Nandyal (D) having Measurement Book no. 3248-A which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.251/DMF/PR/BPlLy2 024 dated 18.02.2024 and (f) Providing CC road near MDH Hospital at Banaganapalli(V AND M) of Nandyal (D) having Measurement Book no. 3254-A which was sanctioned by way of Progs.No.251/DMF/PR/BPL/2024 dated 18.02.2024 as violative of Articles 14 and 19 of Constitution of India and declare the actions of the Respondents as illegal, arbitrary, improper, unjust and against the Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts of Rs. 71,55,470/- with interest @ 24 PERCET per annum for the delayed amount till date of realization and pass

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶25

1.VARUN BYREDDY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶28

2.GP FOR REVENUE

¶29

3.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶30

The Court made the following order :

¶31

Heard Ms M. Deepika, learned counsel representing Sri Varun Byreddy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for respondents 1, 4 and 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, for respondents 2, 3 and 6.

¶32

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.71,55,470/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by it i.e. „1) Providing internal road in B.C. Colony of Peddarajupalam Village of Banaganapalli Mandal; 2) Providing CC road from S.C. Colony, entrance to Church and other internal streets in main village at G. Singavaram Village of Owk Mandal of Nandyal District; 3) Providing CC roads and culverts near G.S building at Thammadapalli of Banaganapalli Mandal; 4) Providing internal CC roads with side drains in housing colony of Hussainapuram Village of Banaganapalli Mandal; 5) Providing repairs BT Road for approach road to Cherla Kotturu of Banaganapalli Mandal Nanyal District; and 6) Providing CC Road near MDH

¶33

Page 4 of 5

¶34

Hospital at Banaganapalli Village and Mandal, Naniyal District, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Today when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), PR(PIU) Division, Nandyal.

¶36

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.71,55,470/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.7,29,766/-, is Rs.64,25,704/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. Learned counsel submits that deficit Court Fee is paid and memo, dated 31.03.2026 along with e-Pay receipt is filed.

¶38

Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for amount of Rs.64,25,704/-. 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:

¶39

“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

¶40

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

¶41

Page 5 of 5

¶42

of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”

¶43

Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), PR(PIU) Division, Nandyal, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.64,25,704/- (Rupees Sixty Four Lakhs Twenty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned works, within five (05) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶44

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

¶45

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶46

Date: 31.03.2026 IKN

Dharma Shasta Contractors v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharma Shasta Contractors v. the State of Ap

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

Challamalla Udaya Chandra Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andey Parvathi Jagadeeswari Vs the State of Ap

Habitation Works Committee, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Plr Projects Private Limited Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Namaadi Sujatha Vs Dr Mahesh Kumar Ravirala IAS (Dismissed)

Plr Projects Private Limited Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh