BharatTaxGST

Raghavendra Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/26638/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01051299202529 March 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: KAVITHA GOTTIPATIFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010512992025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26638/2025 Between: 1. RAGHAVENDRA CONSTRUCTIONS, H.NO. 10-183, SAHANA SADAN, VISALAKSHI NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM, BRANCH OFFICE, CHILAKALURIPET, REP., BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER TELAPROLU VEERAIAH, S/O LAKSHMAIAH, AGED 71 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 9-450 CR CLUB ROAD CHILAKALURIPETA, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE CO-OPERATION (MKTG-II) DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PR-1, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 5. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, P.R. CIRCLE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. 2 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PR, PIU DIVISION, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT 7. 7. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PR, PIU SUB-DIVISION, PEDAKURAPADU, SATTENAPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the Bill amount of Rs 33,62,218/- along with GST @ 18 PERCENTAGE in favour of the petitioner for the execution of work i.e. Road from Muppalla to Dhulipalla-Thondepi R B Road (via) Thurakapalem and Dammalapadu in Muppalla Mandal of Sattenapalli Constituency in Palnadu District under Institutional Finance of Agricultural Marketing Department Grant vide agreement No. /2022-23 dated 14-10-2022 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the above amount forthwith along with interest in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the respondents to release the Bill amount of Rs 33,62,218/- along with GST @ 18PERCENTAGW in favour of the petitioner for the execution of work i.e. Road from Muppalla to Dhulipalla-Thondepi R&B Road (via) Thurakapalem and Dammalapadu in Muppalla Mandal of Sattenapalli Constituency in Palnadu District under Institutional Finance of Agricultural Marketing Department Grant vide agreement No. /2022-23 dated 14-10-2022, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following order:

3

Heard Smt. Kavitha Gottipati, 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.

2.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.33,62,218/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by it i.e., 1Road from Muppalla to Dhulipalla-Thondepi R&B Road (via) Thurakapalem and Dammalapadu in Muppalla Mandal of Sattenapalli Consituency in Palnadu District, vide Agreement No…/2022-23 dated 14.10.2022, as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer (FAC), (PR) PIU Division, Guntur, dated 28.03.2026. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work for a total value of Rs.44,00,511/- and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory recovery of Rs.5,71,711/-, is Rs.38,28,800/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

5.

Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.38,28,800/-. 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

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

4

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.”

6.

Given the instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer (FAC), (PR) PIU Division, Guntur, 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.38,28,800 /- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakhs Twenty Eight Thousand and Eight Hundred 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: 30.03.2026 SNI

5

179 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 26638 OF 2025

Date: 30.03.2026 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.