BharatTaxGST

Kolli Murali Krishna vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/4095/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01006302202604 August 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNAFor Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010063022026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 4095/2026 Between: 1. KOLLI MURALI KRISHNA, , S/O. CHAKRAPANI AGE 38 YEARS, R/O. D.NO. 2-108, MOPIDEVI VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521125. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IRRIGATION AND CAD WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI,GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT - 522237. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, (IRRIGATION WING) KRISHNA DISTRICT, AT MACHILIPATNAM - 521002. 4. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT IRRIGATION CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT-520001. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND WATER, RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, DRAINAGE DIVISION, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521301. ...RESPONDENT(S): Page 2 of 5 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 declare the inaction on part of the respondents herein not releasing the final bill amount worth of Rs. 35,63,767/-, 1) Amount of Rs. 21,28,532/-, Agreement No. 80/24-25 dated 25.01.2025, 2) Rs. 14,35,235/-, Agreement No. 06/24-25 dated 12.07.2024 and vide M. Book No. 5481DG,with interest of execution and completion of works under Irrigation department as per agreement, to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total work was completed as per the agreement as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents releasing the final bills of total amount worth of Rs. 35,63,767/- plus 18 percent GST for execution of completion of works under irrigation Department as per agreement, to the petitioner forthwith, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 releasing the Final bills amount worth of Rs.l3,57,588/- 1) Amount of Rs.4,53,834/-, vide its Agreement No.48/2023- 24, 2) Amount of Rs.4,46,847/-, vide Agreement No.49/2023-24, 3) Amount of Rs.4,56,907/-, vide its Agreement No.50/2023-24 with interest of execution of completion of O&M works under Water Resource Department as per agreement to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

::ORDER ::

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not paying the bill amount of Rs.35,63,767/- in relation to the works executed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, appeared for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the agreement, the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the same was verified by the respective authorities, as per the timelines stipulated in the agreement. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

4.

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.

5.

In para Nos.4 & 5, it was contended as follows:

“4. It is respectfully submitted that, the petitioner has completed the works in stipulated period i.e. 31st May 2025 as per the agreement conditions (i.e. clause 14.1 in Information to bidders), and the work is completed by 24.04.2025. Further it is submitted that the budget is required for processing the bills in Nidhi portal in this financial year of 2025-2026. The above works were completed and the final bill is ready for submission in Nidhi portal for the work done value. Check measurements were done by the concerned Officers. And, there are no vigilance remarks against these works.

5.

It is respectfully submitted that this respondent recorded the pass orders in M. Books in favor of the petitioner for an amount of (i) Rs.21,28,532/- excluding the tender Premium of (-) 40.14% (ii) Rs.14,35,235/-excluding the tender Premium of (-) 40.14% and Quality control certificate was issued for an amount of (i) Rs.21,28,532/- (ii) Rs.14,35,235/-, Further it is submitted that this department has admitted the bill amount of (i) Rs.21,28,532/- (ii) Rs.14,35,235/- Excluding the tender Premium and will be uploaded whenever the budget is available.”

5.

As seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.4, the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works, and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.35,63,767/-.

6.

Thus, as seen from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.5, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.35,63,767/-. 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: “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 juri iction. 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 instruction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.35,63,767/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With respect to the interest component concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 05.08.2026 TVN

Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

139 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 4095 of 2026

Date: 05.08.2026 TVN

Reproduced from the public record of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.