D Ganapathi Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010617952025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3331] WEDNE AY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31945/2025 Between:
D GANAPATHI REDDY, S/O. LATE D. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O.D.NO.4-64/2, REDDYVARI PALLE, PALAMGADDA (POST), K.V. PALLI MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ERSTWHILE CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, MADANAPALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.
THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB DIVISION, PILER, ANNAMAYYA 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 appropriate writ, direction, order or orders, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in questioning the action of the respondents in not releasing bill payment for the work i.e.. Providing Internal CC Road from Diguva Vagalla main road to Diguvavagalla H/W K.V. Palle Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Chittoor District) for the estimated contract value of work of Rs. 10,65,000/- in respect of the bill amount of Rs.8,29,292/- for the work executed by the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,29,292/- towards the bill amount for the work executed by the petitioner and to 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 an amount of Rs.8,29,292/- towards bill amount for the work executed by the petitioner i.e.. Providing Internal CC Road from Diguva Vagalla main road to Diguvavagalla Fl/W K.V. Palle Mandal, Annamayya District (Erstwhile Chittoor District), pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
K NAVEEN KUMAR 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.8,29,292/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by the petitioner i.e. Providing internal CC road from Diguva Vagalla main raod to Diguvagalla H/W K.V. Palle Mandal, Annamayya District, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri K. Naveen Kumar, 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, Madanapalle – respondent No.3. 4. A perusal of the said instructions indicates that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works. It further indicates that the total value of the work done by the petitioner is Rs.10,28,358/-, and after QC recoveries, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.9,38,290/- (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 works and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.9,38,290/- (including GST). 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 respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.9,38,290/- (including GST) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
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: 18.03.2026 TVN
309 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 31945 of 2025
Date: 18.03.2026 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.