BharatTaxGST

Sri Esukapalli Nagaraju vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/13617/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01025740202628 July 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: Thota DharmendraFor Respondent: GP FOR REVENUE, GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010257402026 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:13617/2026 Between: 1. SRI ESUKAPALLI NAGARAJU,, S/O. NARASIMHA RAJU, AGED ABOVE MAJOR, R/O. D.NO.4-48, BYRAVARAPATNAM MANDAVALLI, ELURU DISTRICT, A.P-521345. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDIHGS, AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT- 522238. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522238. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HANUMANPETA, VIJAYAWADA, ANDHRA PRADESH- 52003. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT BHIMAVARAM-534201. 5. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI, AP-534202. Page 2 of 5 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM WEST GODAVARI, AP-534202. 8. THE DIRECTOR, PAY AND ACCOUNTS, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted bills for execution of work vide. 1). Agreement No.32/2024-25 dated 10-07-2024 for an amount of Rs. 14,59,963/- and GST, 2). Agreement No.33/2024-25 dated 10-07-2024 for an amount of Rs. 6,29,553/- and GST, 3). Agreement No. 34/2024-25 dated 10-07-2024 for an amount of Rs.16,31,306/- and GST total amount of Rs.37,20,822/- and GST/other charges is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to release/pay admitted amount an amount of Rs.37,20,822/- and GST/other charges and pass such orders and in the interest of the justice. 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the admitted bills for execution of work vide. 1). Agreement No.32/2024-25 dated 10-07-2024 for an amount of Rs. 14,59,963/- and GST, 2). Agreement No.33/2024-25 dated 10-07- 2024 for an amount of Rs. 6,29,553/- and GST, 3). Agreement No. 34/2024-25 dated 10-07-2024 for an amount of Rs. 16,31,306/- and GST total amount of Rs.37,20,822/- and GST/other to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of Writ Petition, and pass such other. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Thota Dharmendra Page 3 of 5 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3. 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 amounts of Rs.14,59,963/-, Rs.6,29,553/- and Rs.16,31,306/- payable to the petitioner for execution of work in pursuance of agreement Nos.32/2024-25, 33/2024-25 and 34/2024-25 dated 10.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

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.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that pursuant to the aforementioned agreements, the petitioner has executed the works as per the time stipulated in the agreement and the same was verified by the respective authorities. However, the amounts have not been paid so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay the deficit court fee and file a memo to that effect within one week.

4.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Finance & Planning Department, 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/1065 DD, dated 27.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.13,21,299/-, Rs.5,76,857/- and Rs.14,31,195/- in relation to the works executed in pursuance of aforementioned agreements. However, the bills were not uploaded, as awaited for LOC.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amounts mentioned in the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram.

6.

Thus, as seen from the instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement to the aforementioned amounts. 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 instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release amounts of Rs.13,21,299/-, Rs.5,76,857/- and Rs.14,31,195/-, payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the works in pursuance of the aforementioned works, subject to deductions, if any, within three (03) 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.

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 29.07.2026 IKN

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

282

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 13617 of 2026

Date: 29.07.2026 IKN

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.