logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide

24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 540 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 14805 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
Parties : Odugu Vishnu Murthy Versus The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Thullur Mandal, Amaravati & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Rambabu Koppineedi, Advocate. For the Respondents: GP For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, E.V. Jagannadha Rao, SC, N. Srihari, Standing Counsel, GP For Finance Planning.
Date of Judgment : 08-04-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: 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 or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of contract works vide i) Layout ID No.058601 LA 112089 in respect of work ID No.050594523016170084 for withheld an amount of Rs. 1,09,692/-, ii) Layout ID No. 05860ILAl 12089 in respect of Work ID No.050594523016170083 forV an amount of Rs. 3,07,146/- and withheld amount of Rs. 10,279/- totaling an amount of Rs. 4,27,117/- respectively, for material supplied by the Petitioner and also works executed by the Petitioner for Development of Housing Colony in Pedamynavani Lanka Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to the Rules and Regulations of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and consequently direct the respondents to comply with the above mentioned FTRs and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 1 to 3 to release the funds through a proper channel into the account of respondent No. 15 or any other concerned forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass such)

1. Heard Sri Rambabu Koppineedi, 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.

2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of contract works vide i) Layout ID No.058601 LA 112089 in respect of work ID No.050594523016170084 for withheld an amount of Rs. 1,09,692/-, ii) Layout ID No. 05860ILAl 12089 in respect of Work ID No.050594523016170083 forV an amount of Rs. 3,07,146/- and withheld amount of Rs. 10,279/- totaling an amount of Rs. 4,27,117/- respectively, for material supplied by the Petitioner and also works executed by the Petitioner for Development of Housing Colony in Pedamynavani Lanka Village, Narasapuram Mandal, West Godavari District, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram.

4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that –

S.

No.

Description

Work-1

Work-2

Total

1

Total value of the work

done

1115242.00

717643.00

1832885.00

2

Wage Expenditure

138410.00

4723.00

143133.00

3

Seignorage deduction

178729.00

0.00

178729.00

4

Balance amount to be

released

798103.00

712920.00

1511023.00

5

Amount already paid to the petitioner

687633.00

267698.00

955331.00

6

Balance amount to be

paid to the petitioner

51669.00

317426.00

369095.00

                  Therefore, the net amount payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.3,69,095/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

6. Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,69,095/-. 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 & Ors(2025 SCC online SC 1400), it was held at Para No.8 as under:

                  “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.”

7. Given the instructions furnished by the Project Director, District Water Management Agency, West Godavari District, Bhimavaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,69,095/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand Ninety Five only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs.

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

 
  CDJLawJournal