Palepu Janaki Jayaram 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 Ravula Nagarjuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents.
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.28,38,079 payable to the petitioner in relation to the ten works executed by him for construction of CC Roads in various villages of Seethanagaram Mandal vide 1) M.Book No.724/B/2022-23, 2) M.Book No.719/B/2022-23, 3) M.Book No.721/B/2022- 23, 4) M.Book No.803/B/2022-23, 5. M.Book No.810/B/2022-23, 6) M.Book No.381/A/DYEE/2022-23, 7) M.Book No.801/b/2022-23, 8) M.Book No.380/A/DYEE/2022-23, 9) M.Book No.382/A/DYE E/2022-23 and, M.Book No.369/A/DYEE/2022-23, 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, Rajamahendravaram.
A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.33,48,933/- (including GST) and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.2,81,000/-, is Rs.30,37,932/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same. Learned counsel submits that the deficit Court Fee of Rs.900/- is paid, and the memo along with e-Pay receipt is filed vide USR No.37817/2026. 6. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.30,37,932/-. 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, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram, though there is a small variation in the amount claimed by the petitioner and the amount determined by the official, as payable to the petitioner, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.30,37,932/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Two Seven only) (including GST) 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, all the pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. ______________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated: 31.03.2026 SNI
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
232 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION No.18009 of 2025
Dated: 31.03.2026 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.