Sri Esukapalli Nagaraju vs. The State Pf Andhra Pradesh

Heard Sri T.Dharmendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri K.Sambasiva Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the aforementioned agreements, the petitioner has executed the works, i.e., i) Annual maintenance towards removal of weed growth from Medium and minor drains in drainage section No.4, Narsapuram for the year 2024-25 and ii) Annual Maintenance towards removal of weed growth on Major, Medium and Minor drains in drainage section Veeravasaram for the year 2024-25, as per the timelines stipulated in the agreements and the same was verified by the respective authorities. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri K.Sambasiva Rao, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, appearing for the respondents, submitted the written instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, vide Letter No:EE/DD/BVRM/AB/A.4/CC’s/1097 DD dated 29.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned works is Rs.42,68,126/- and the bills were not uploaded due to lack of budget.

The petitioner has paid a Court Fee of only Rs.100/-, and the petitioner shall pay the deficit Court Fee of Rs.100/- within one week from the receipt of the order copy and file a memo to that effect, failing which the Registry will take necessary steps for payment of the deficit Court Fee.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

Thus, as seen from the instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner’s entitlement to 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: “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.”.

Given the instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.42,68,126/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs Sixty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Twenty Six only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, subject to deductions, if any, within four (04) months from the receipt of the copy of this order. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.