Sri Esukapalli Nagaraju vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
::ORDER ::
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amount of Rs.8,69,571/-, Rs.11,46,161/- and Rs.6,73,014/- payable to the petitioner for execution of works in pursuance of agreement Nos.103/2024-25, 104/2024-25 and 105/2024-25, dated 14.02.2025, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri T. Dharmendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Satish, 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 agreements dated 14.02.2025, the petitioner has executed the works 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. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to pay the deficit court fee within one week and file a memo to that effect. The same is recorded.
Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri S. Satish, 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 vide letter No.EE/DRG/GDV/AB/A3/Court Cases/621 M dated 01.07.2026, wherein it is stated that the amounts payable to the petitioner in respect of the works executed pursuant to the aforementioned agreements are Rs.8,53,152/-, Rs.10,92,124/- and Rs.6,69,362/- and the bills will be uploaded.
Thus, as seen from instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gudivada, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for 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.”.
Given the instructions of the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Gudivada, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release amounts of Rs.8,53,152/-, Rs.10,92,124/- and Rs.6,69,362/-, payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the works pursuant to the aforementioned agreements, subject to statutory deductions, if any, within two (03) months from the date of 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: 01.07.2026 IKN
Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 10868 of 2026
Date: 01.07.2026 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.