Yandra Ramachandram 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 Smt. Devasri Roshan K., 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.8,75,793/-, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed i.e. „1) Construction fo CC roads from Kola Srinu (H) to Panchayathi bore (H) in Katakoteswaram village of Nidadavole Mandal, 2) Construction of CC Drain from Meda Satyanarayana (H) to Vanimisetti Venkata Rama Rao (H) at D. Muppavaram of Nidadavole Mandal and 3) Construction of CC Drain from Addagarla Brahmam (H) to Nalla Thulasamma and Vanimisetti Venkata Rama Rao house to Denina Satyanarayana (H) at D. Muppavaram‟, in pursuance of agreements dated 18.01.2024, 30.09.2023 and 30.09.2023, respectively, as illegal and arbitrary.
When the matter was taken up on 21.03.2026, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submitted the instructions of Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Rajamahendravaram, wherein it was stated as follows: “One of the petitioners claimed works i.e., Construction of CC roads from kola srinu H To panchayathi bore H in Katakoteswaram village of Nidadavole mandal does not executed by the RWS&S
Department the work belongs to Panchayat Engineering Department since it was construction of CC Road. And the another work is executed by the RWS Department, and the works was administratively sanctioned under Gadapa gadapaku mana Prabhutvam (GGMP) grant. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,75,793.00 as per the work bills available, the gross amount is Rs3,78,400.00 (including GST) and the amount payable to the petitioner duly deducting the statutory recoveries is Rs.339277.00 (for RWS Works only). It is also submitted that, Currently the budget is not released by the government, for creation of bills and submit to the Pay and Accounts Office for making payment, the bills shall be submitted as and when the government release the budget in NIDHI Portal. Therefore, it is humbly requested to grant 09 months of time for Accord Budget Release orders from the government and then only we can submit the bills to Pay & Accounts office for payment.”
The instructions furnished by Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Rajamahendravaram, would also disclose that the petitioners have executed the work for a total amount of Rs.3,78,400/-, and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.3,39,277/- and the same is endorsed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram, wherein it is stated as follows: “In the above WP No:22523/2025 out of 3 works, 2 works are executed by RWS and remaining one work was executed by PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram and the above case was filed by advocate DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA and later another WP was filed by advocate RAVULA NAGARJUNA vide WP No:22849/2025 for the same work and instructions are sent to Hon‟ble High court on 29.10.12025 for WP No:22849/2025. 2 WPs are filed for same work. Payment Initiated. Time required of four months. Certified that these instructions are issued by respondent no 5 in records amount claimed as per rules in vogue.”
The instructions furnished by Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram, would also disclose that the petitioners have executed the work for a total amount of Rs.3,80,942/-, and the net amount payable to the petitioners after statutory deductions of Rs.31,498/-, is Rs.3,49,444/-, and the same is endorsed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The written instructions are made as part of the record.
The petitioners have paid the single Court fee of Rs.100/- against different works. Learned counsel undertakes to pay the deficit court fee within one week from the receipt of the order copy and file a memo to that effect. The same is recorded.
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioners‟ entitlement for the amount of Rs.6,88,721/- (Rs.3,39,277/- + Rs.3,49,444/-). 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.
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
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, RWS & S Division, Rajamahendravaram and the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Rajamahendravaram, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.6,88,721/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty One only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of aforementioned work, 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: 23.03.2026 IKN/JLSR
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.