J. Radha Krishna vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
::ORDER ::
Heard Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development and Finance for respondents 1, 2 and 4 to 7 and Sri Mallikarjuna Moorthy K, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.70,00,000/- payable to the petitioner for the works executed i.e. „Land Levelling 1st stage in YSR Jagananna Housing colony in 18th Ward Gilakaladindi Block-III layout in Machilipatnam (Urban) (Layout ID:068118LA000776) Part-1 and Part-2‟, as illegal and arbitrary.
Today, when the matter is taken up, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted the instructions of Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam.
A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works for a total value of Rs.63,23,318/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after QC recovery/statutory recovery of Rs.8,69,333/- is Rs.54,53,985/- out of which the petitioner was paid Rs.38,82,601/- and the balance amount payable is Rs.15,71,384/-. The instructions are made part of the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.
Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.15,71,384/-. 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 furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.15,71,384/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Three Hundred and Eighty Four only) 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: 21.04.2026 IKN
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 4486 of 2026
Date: 21.04.2026 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.