(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 appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing bill payment for the work i.e.. Construction of Protection wall for the Road from Dondlavagu - Peddakudala Road to Thernampalli (0/2 to 0/4 to 0/4 to 0/6 Km) Dondlavagu Village of Lingala Mandal in YSR Kadapa District for the estimated contract value of work of Rs. 11,30,754/- in respect of the bill amount of Rs.11,81,719/- for the work executed by the petitioner despite the claim for the payment of bill amount is raised (Token No.2024-173539) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.11,81,719/- towards the bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.11,81,719/-towards bill amount for the works executed by the petitioner i.e.. Construction of Protection wall for the Road from Dondlavagu - Peddakudala Road to Thernampalli (0/2 to 0/4 to 0/4 to 0/6 Km) Dondlavagu Village of Lingala Mandal in YSR Kadapa District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass)

Common Order

1. The Writ Petitioners in the batch of these Writ Petitions, who are Contractors and firms are claiming the respective amounts for executing the respective contract works assigned to them by the respondent authorities. Since the point involved in all these Writ Petitions is one and the same, at request of all the counsel, they are being taken up together and disposed of, by this Common Order.

2. In these Writ Petitions, the Writ Petitioners are seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments for the bills submitted for execution of the respective works by them, and consequently, seek direction to the respondents to release the pending bill amounts for the said works executed by the Writ Petitioners.

3. Heard all the learned counsel appearing for the parties on record.

4. The Writ Petitioners claim to be Civil Contractors. The details of the works claimed to have been executed by the Writ Petitioners and the amounts claimed due by them for execution of the respective works, are as under:

                  



















5. It is the case of the Writ Petitioners that they executed the aforesaid respective works as per the Agreements entered into, with the respondents, and the respondent authorities examined and scrutinized the same, and made entries in the M-Book, but the respondent authorities are not taking steps to release the amounts to the Writ Petitioners. Though the Writ Petitioners approached the respondent authorities on multiple occasions, requesting for payment of pending bills amount, the authorities are not releasing the amounts due to them. According to the Writ Petitioners, having executed the works satisfactorily, within the prescribed time, non-payment of the bills amount is arbitrary and unjustified, and the delay in payment is causing severe financial hardship, necessitating the filing of the present Writ Petitions seeking appropriate directions for release of the outstanding amounts.

6. Respondent No.10-the Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement, Vijayawada, filed counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No.19791 of 2024, denying the contents of the Writ affidavit, inter alia contending that pursuant to the Orders of this respondent, vide Memo No.0215/V&E/Engg./2025-2, dated 03.04.2025, the Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Kadapa had undertaken inquiry in respect of works sanctioned under the PADA (Pulivendula Area Development Authority) Programme. It is further contended that out of 4,935 works sanctioned under the said programme, 3,510 works were executed. During initial phase of inquiry, 279 works were taken up randomly for investigation and an interim report in respect thereof was submitted to this respondent on 24.10.2025.

                  (b) It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that during the course of inquiry, serious irregularities were noticed in 92 works, warranting proposals for recovery of amount to a tune of Rs.8.95 crores. The irregularities included – claims made towards agreement items that were found unexecuted during the field verification, submission of false information regarding existing commitments and turnover, inflation of turnover figures, and production of fabricated and forged experience certificates for securing tenders in violation of G.O.Ms.No.94, dated 01.07.2003. Thereafter, in order to facilitate a comprehensive examination of the remaining executed works under the PADA Programme, further instructions were issued vide Memo No.0215/V&E/Engg./2025, dated 01.04.2026.

                  (c) It is further stated that the Vigilance Inquiry is independent of the statutory and administrative functions of the executing Departments relating to the scrutiny, processing, and release of payments, and this respondent had neither issued any direction, restraining the competent authorities from considering the claim of the Contractors who executed the works nor advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking an appropriate decision in accordance with applicable Rules. It is further stated that the findings, if any, of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department, are only advisory and recommendatory in nature, and are placed before the competent authorities for such action as may be deemed appropriate in accordance with law. In the event any irregularity warranting recovery is noticed subsequently, it is always open to the competent authorities to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. Therefore, the petitioners cannot attribute the alleged non-release of payments to any action or omission on the part of this respondent. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Perused the entire material available on record.

8. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the respondent authorities assigned the respective contract works, as mentioned supra, to the respective Writ Petitioners. Grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that though they executed the said contract works within the stipulated time to the satisfaction of the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities are not releasing the payments covered under the bills that were submitted by the Writ Petitioners for the amounts spent by them for executing the respective works.

9. Many of the subject Writ Petitions were instituted in the years 2024 and 2025, and some of them in the month of February, 2026. As per Rule 12 (i) (a) of the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, every respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent. Despite adjourning the Writ Petitions from time to time for filing counter-affidavits by the respondents, the counter-affidavits have not been filed within the stipulated period of 120 days as per the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977. Therefore, this Court is constrained to proceed with the Writ Petitions basing on the material available on record.

10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance and Planning submits that during the period from 2019 to 2024, certain developmental works were executed under the erstwhile PADA, and subsequently, the PADA was closed by the Government in the year 2024.

11. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that even according to the respondents, there is no dispute with regard to execution of the respective works by the Writ Petitioners, and the Writ Petitioners’ entitlement for the net amount. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M/s. Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chef General Manager & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: (paragraph No.8)

                  “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, it not the correct course unless there are disputed questions of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”

12. It is also pertinent to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra and Other (AIR 2020 Supreme Court 3969.) wherein it is held as under: (paragraph Nos.100 and 101)

                  “100. The High Courts’ exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of Mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.

                  101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a Writ of Mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.”

13. Further, in Kashmir Wood Products v. Verinag Development Authority and Others (2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814.), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir held as under: (paragraph No.8)

                  “8. It is astonishing to note that despite there being no dispute as regards the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have sit over the matter for the last more than six years and they have not released the payment in favour of the petitioner. If the requisite funds were not available with the respondents, they had no business to allot the work to the petitioner and if in spite of financial constraints, the respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.”

                  Since, in the case on hand, the amounts payable are admitted and undisputed, non-payment thereof amounts to arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, and hence, the Writ Petitions are maintainable.

14. The only contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that a Vigilance Inquiry was initiated basing on the complaints received with regard to some irregularities that occurred in execution of PADA works, and that the Director General (Vigilance and Enforcement), Vijayawada is conducting inquiry and the Inquiry Report is awaited. According to the respondents, since Vigilance Inquiry is contemplated and report is awaited, the respective amounts payable to the Writ Petitioners have been kept pending. On this aspect, a perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the Director General, Vigilance & Enforcement, Vijayawada goes to show that the Vigilance Inquiry is independent of the statutory and administrative functions of the executing Departments, relating to scrutiny, processing and release of payments and that, the said authority had not issued any direction restraining the authorities competent, from considering the claim of the Contractors, and it had not advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking appropriate decision in regard to the claims. From the said counter-affidavit, it is clear that in the event, any irregularity, warranting recovery is noticed subsequently, it is open to the competent authorities to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. In regard to pendency of Vigilance Inquiry, it is also pertinent to refer to a decision rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Katta Chinna Kotaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (MANU/AP/0721/2022.) wherein, this Court held as under:

                  “The Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions held that when there is non-payment of the undisputed bills, the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the petitioner rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in M/s. Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2019) 16 SCC 794], following the judgment in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. [2004 (3) SCC 553]. In view of the Apex Court judgment, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the Writ Petition is not maintainable before this Court could not be countenanced. The bills of the petitioner dated 13.03.2019 are admitted by the respondents and forwarded for payment after due measurements and obtaining quality control and the Vigilance report. Hence, the authorities are stopped from stating that the bills are submitted without executing the works. On the mere ground of pendency of Vigilance report, payment cannot be stopped. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.8,08,828/- to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

15. In the case on hand, the only ground for not releasing the amounts to the Writ Petitioners/Contractors is that the authorities are awaiting Vigilance Inquiry Report. As held in the aforesaid decision, mere pending receipt of the Vigilance Inquiry Report is not a ground to withhold the payments. Even according to the counter-affidavit filed by the Director General, Vigilance and Enforcement, Vijayawada, the Writ Petitioners cannot attribute the alleged non-release of payments to any action or omission on the part of the said respondent, and that the said respondent had neither issued any direction, restraining the competent authorities from considering the Writ Petitioner’s claim nor advised them to await completion of the Vigilance Inquiry before taking appropriate decision in accordance with the applicable Rules. When an instrumentality of the State acts contrary to the public good and public interest, unfairly, unjustly and unreasonably, in its contractual, constitutional or statutory obligations, it really acts contrary to the constitutional guarantee found in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is not the case of the respondents that the contracts in question were obtained either by fraud or misrepresentation. When once the respondent No.10, in clear terms stated that the action or omission on the part of this respondent cannot be attributed for non-release of payments, there is no other reason for the respondent authorities in not releasing the amounts in favour of the Writ Petitioners. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, mere pending receipt of the Vigilance Inquiry Report is not a ground for withholding the amounts for the works which are admittedly executed by the Writ Petitioners.

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others ((2019) 16 SCC 794.) held as under: (paragraph Nos.3 and 4)

                  “3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid Order dated 22.03.2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a Writ Petition being Writ Civil No.25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 02.05.2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the Writ Petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. Of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553]).

                  4. This being the case and the work having been completed long back in 2009, we direct Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam to make the necessary payment within a period of four weeks from today. Given the long period of delay, interest @ 6% p.s. may also be awarded.”

17. Apart from this, when State or State instrumentalities act in an arbitrary manner or fail to act within time, the Writ Court does have jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners submit that in respect of other Districts, the Government authorities have released the amounts in favour of the respective Contractors, who executed the works, but in respect of the District in which the subject works were executed, the respondent authorities withheld the amounts without there being any justifiable reason. This Court is not inclined to go into this aspect.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, in respect of the bills for the works executed by the respective Writ Petitioners up to Rs.25.00 lakhs, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the said amount to the respective Writ Petitioners within a period of Four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In respect of the bills for the other works executed by the respective Writ Petitioners which are above Rs.25.00 lakhs, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the said amount to the respective Writ Petitioners within a period of Eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that in the event of any irregularity noticed in the Vigilance Inquiry Report, warranting recovery, it is open to the authority concerned to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law.

20. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs of these Writ Petitions.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.