BharatTaxGST

P. Sanjeeva Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/12136/2024HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01023656202414 July 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: BANDI SRIHARIFor Respondent: GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING, GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010236562024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE 15th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12136/2024 Between: 1. P. SANJEEVA REDDY,, S/O. ASWARTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O.D. 1-136A, MARAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, KOTHACHERUVU MANDAL, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY ( FINANCE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF IRRIGATION, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA. KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,I.B DIVISION PENUKONDA, ANANTAPUR 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 to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature Page 2 of 5 of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not returned the EMD's and FSD's along with GST total and also not paying the interest in respect of works done by the Petitioner from the date of submitting bill to final payment payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of works under the scheme of Neeru Chettu i.e., vide Agreement No. 194/SEA/2017-18 on 30-10-2017 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of G.O.RT. No. 266 dated 15-02-2021 ad Memo No.1279341/FMU- WR. 1/2020 dated 18-02-2021 and violation of Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.A No. 724 of 2021 and consequently direct the Respondents to return the EMD's and FSD's along with interest @ 6percent per annum from the date of submitting bill to final payment and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to return the EMD’s and FSD’s along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of submitting bill to final payment for the Agreement No. 194/SEA/2017-18 on 30-10-2017, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BANDI SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

The Court made the following order: Heard Ms. Thabasum, learned counsel representing Sri Bandi Srihari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development for the respondents.

2.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not returning the EMD and F amounts along with GST in relation to the execution of works under the scheme of “Neeru Chettu” vide Agreement No.194/SEA/2017-18 dated 30.10.2017, as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, Irrigation and Command Area Development, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, I.B. Division, Penukonda – 5th respondent, dated 13.07.2026. A copy of the written instructions is handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner across the bar.

4.

Thus, as seen from the written instructions, an amount of Rs.32,52,269.1/- was paid to the petitioner and the balance payable is Rs.57,500/-.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

6.

In the written instructions, it was specifically mentioned that Sub Clause 3.8 of the agreement reads as follows: “No omission by the Executive Engineer or the Sub-Divisional Officer to pay the amount due upon certificates shall vitiate or make void the contract, nor shall the contractor be entitled to interest upon any guarantee fund or payments in arrear, nor upon any balance which may, on the final settlement of his accounts, the found to be due to him.”

7.

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.57,500/-. 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.

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

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 facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.57,500/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) payable to the petitioner regarding the execution of the aforementioned works, within one (01) month from the date of 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 the appropriate forum, in view of the Sub Clause 3.8 of the agreement. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 15.07.2026 SNI

173 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 12136 of 2024

Date: 15.07.2026 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.