Billa Srinivas vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010426452024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 22182/2024 Between:
BILLA SRINIVAS, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O 2-77/1,KOMARAJULANKA VILLAGE, RAVULAPALEM MANDAL, DR.BR.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DR.BR.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DIST.AMALAPURAM.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, ,GOVERNMENT OF A.P, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYATH RAJCIRCLE, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DIST. (PRESENTLY KAKINADA DISTRICT).
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , PRI DIVISION, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.EAST GODAVARI DIST.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI
...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 of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the action on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.4,17,705/- with interest under the grant of F 2018-19 to the petitioner for execution of works as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.4,17,705/- with interest under the grant of F 2018-19 to the petitioner forthwith and to pass such 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 may be pleased to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.4,17,705/- with interest under the grant of F 2018-19 to the petitioner forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass such Counsel for the Petitioner:
SAMEERA BOKKA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:
::ORDER ::
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.4,17,705/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. providing Gravel road from Gadi Chandra Rao H to SC colony in SC area in Kamarajulanka Village, Ravulapalem Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Ms. A.V. Sai Harshitha, learned counsel representing Ms. Sameera Bokka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram – respondent No.5. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work. It further indicates that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.4,97,850/-, and after QC recovery, i.e. Rs.59,121/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.4,38,729/- (including GST). The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as mentioned in the written instructions.
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.4,38,729/-. 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.”.
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.5, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.4,38,729/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within three (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: 24.04.2026 TVN
294 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 22182 of 2024
Date: 24.04.2026 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.