BharatTaxGST

Kolli Murali Krishna vs. The State Of Ap

Original PDF →
WP/3814/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01006298202628 July 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNAFor Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

Facts

The petitioner completed irrigation works as per an agreement but the final bill amount was not released. The respondents admitted the work completion and a reduced payable amount but cited portal upload errors.

Held

The Court directed the respondents to release the admitted payable amount within two months. The claim for interest was denied, with the petitioner advised to approach a civil court or appropriate forum.

Key Issues

Whether the inaction of authorities in releasing admitted bill amounts is arbitrary, and whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on delayed payment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010062982026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 3814/2026 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 AP, 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, KRISHNA CENTRAL DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT - 520001. ...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. 26,86,714/- , 1) Amount of Rs. 26,86,714/-, Agreement No. 02/24-25 dated 22.07.2024 and vide M. Book No. 10055,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. 26,86,714/- 18 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 of total amount worth of Rs. 26,86,714/- + 18% GST, for execution of completion of works under Irrigation Department as per agreement, to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition and 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 releasing the amount of Rs.26,86,714/- payable to the petitioner for execution of work in pursuance of Agreement No.02/24-25 dated 22.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

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

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the aforementioned agreement, the petitioner has executed the work, ‘O&M such as removal of weed growth on KEB Main Canal and its branches under Head works Section, Puligadda for the year 2024-25’, as per the timelines stipulated in the agreement and the same was verified by the respective authorities. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

4.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, 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 (FAC), Krishna Central Division, Vijayawada, vide Letter No.EE/KCDVN/VJA/AB/A2/882M dated 27.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the aforementioned work after statutory deductions is Rs.18,01,090/- and the bills are not uploaded in Nidhi Portal due to error (Regulation of expenditure) showing in Nidhi Portal.

5.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to interest. He placed reliance on the order, dated 11.02.2025, in W.A.No.60 of 2025 passed by the Division Bench of this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount mentioned in the instructions.

7.

Thus, as seen from the instructions of Executive Engineer (FAC), Krishna Central Division, Vijayawada, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work 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.”

8.

Given the instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), Krishna Central Division, Vijayawada, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.18,01,090/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakhs One Thousand and Ninety only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) months from the receipt of the copy of this order. Insofar as the interest component is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the civil court or appropriate forum, given the directions in W.A.No.60 of 2025. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.07.2026 SNI

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

311 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 3814 of 2026

Date: 29.07.2026 SNI

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.