G Venkateswara Rao vs. The State Of Ap
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order: Heard, Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Finance and Planning for the respondents.
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing amount of Rs.80,00,000/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e., Levelling of Housing Layout in 18th Ward Gilakaladindi of Machilipatnam urban (Block-I), Part – 1 and 2, as illegal and arbitrary.
Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Machilipatnam – 4th respondent, dated 31.03.2026. 4. As seen from the instructions, the total value of the work done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.56,75,642/-. After withhold/statutory recovery of Rs.7,80,295/-. Out of the same, an amount of Rs.24,31,783/- was already paid to the petitioner, and the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.24,63,564/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.24,63,564/-. 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
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 furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Machilipatnam – 4th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.24,63,564/- (Rupees Twenty Four Lakhs Sixty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Sixty Four only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, within four (04) 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: 30.04.2026 SNI
166 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4949 of 2026
Date: 30.04.2026 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.