BharatTaxGST

Sri Esukapalli Nagaraju vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/12473/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01023176202605 July 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: Thota DharmendraFor Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Date of reserved for orders : -- Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : APHC010231762026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 12473/2026 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. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KRISHNA EASTERN DIVISION, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DIRECTOR, PAY AND ACCOUNTS, FINANCE DEPARTMENT ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ o-f Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order declare the action of the respondents in not paying the admitted bills for execution of work vide. Agreement No.33/2024-25 dated 30-07-2024 for an amount of Rs. 15,15,955/- and GST, as 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. 15,15,955/- with GST 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 to pay the admitted bills for execution of work vide. Agreement No.33/2024-25 dated 30-07-2024 an amount of Rs.15, 15,955/- with GST to the petitioner forthwith, pending disposal of Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Thota Dharmendra 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.15,15,955/-, in relation to the work executed by the petitioner, pursuant to Agreement No.33/2024-25, dated 30.07.2024, as illegal and arbitrary.

2.

Heard T. Dharmendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Satish, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, appeared for the respondents.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the 3rd respondent entered into an agreement vide Ex.P1, for the removal of weeds on Gudiwada Canal from Km 14.000 to Km 39.900, including Branch Channels and allied works under the juri iction of the Lower Gudiwada Section, Polukonda for 2024-25. The petitioner has executed the aforementioned work as per the timelines stipulated in the agreement, and the respective authorities have verified the same. However, the amount has not been paid so far.

4.

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri Satish, learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted the written instructions of respondent No.

3.

In the written instructions, it was stated that “the above O & M work bill was not processed for payment due to Lack of L.O.C.

5.

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement to Rs.15,15,955/-. 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.”.

6.

Given the instructions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.15,15,955/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within three (03) months

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

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: 06.07.2026 TVN

172 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 12473 of 2026

Date: 06.07.2026 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.