Arikatla Koti Lingaiah vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Shaik Meeravali, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 6, and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 7 and 8. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount of Rs.9,05,908/- payable to the petitioner in relation to the works executed by it i.e., 1) Improment to the Road from SC Colony to Mupparajupalem Reach 03 in Kondapi Gram Panchayat, Kondapi Mandal, 2) Improment to the Road from SC Colony to Mupparajupalem Reach 04 in Kondapi Gram Panchayat, Kondapi Mandal, 3) Improment to the Road from SC Colony to Mupparajupalem Reach 05 in Kondapi Gram Pancahayat, Kondapi Mandal, and 4) Improment to the Road from SC Colony to MUpparajupalem Reach 06 in Kondapi Gram Panchayat, Kondapi Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.
Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Ms.Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the respondents 7 and 8, submitted instructions of the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Kondapi – 7th respondent, dated 04.03.2026. Wherein it is stated as follows: “I submit that Administration sanction was accorded in respect of 4 works i.e., 1. Providing – M.P. General Fund grant, 2022-23 for improvement to the Road from S.C colony to Mupparajupalem Reach- 03, Reach-04, Reach-05 and Reach-06 vide Administration sanction Rc.No.B/304/2022 dated 19.01.2023 etc., of the M.P.D.O, Kondapi. Technical Sanction was also accorded to the above works by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Kandukur. Sri Arikatla Kotilingaiah, nominee works Committee of Kondapi GP approached the MPDO, Kondapi to conclude the agreement within week days to complete the works in stipulated time duly following the guidelines norks under M.P. General Fund and the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kondapi was accordingly directed to complete the work under his supervision following the norms imposed by the State Government, payment will be made from MP General Funds basing on availability of Funds. It is submitted that the above works were executed by the Writ Petitioner i.e., Arikatla Kotilingaiah and requested the MPDO for payment of the amount due for execution of works. Since there was no GST number assigned, the writ petitioner was directed to obtain GST number and then to approach the MPDO. The Writ Petitioner has obtained GST number belatedly i.e., just one week back and sought for payment of the amounts due to him. But by that time, there was no amount available in General funds for making payment to him and the MPDO assured him payment of one lakh rupees within following week days and promised him payment of the balance amount within next six months installment wise as and when the General funds are available with MPDO.”
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.9,05,908/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in Surya Constructions v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others1, in Para Nos.3 & 4, has observed as follows:
“3. It is clear, therefore, from the aforesaid order dated 22-3-2014 that there is no dispute as to the amount that has to be paid to the appellant. Despite this, when the appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in a writ petition being Writ Civil No. 25216 of 2014, the impugned judgment dated 2-5-2014 [Surya Construction v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 6071] dismissed the writ petition stating that disputed questions of fact arise and that the 1 (2019) 16 SCC 794
amount due arises out of a contract. We are afraid the High Court was wholly incorrect inasmuch as there was no disputed question of fact. On the contrary, the amount payable to the appellant is wholly undisputed. Equally, it is well settled that where the State behaves arbitrarily, even in the realm of contract, the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd., (2004) 3 SCC 553] ).
In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors2, 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.”.
However, the amount was not paid as per the instructions, due to paucity of funds. After works were executed, the amount cannot be stopped due to paucity of funds.
In Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) v. Amit Tanwar3, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, held in Para No.48, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
“48. It is equally strange that the Corporation seeks to justify the non-payment on the ground of non-availability of funds for medicines or hospital items or pensions or salaries of the Corporation. Running the Corporation is not the business of the Contractor. It is for the Corporation to manage its affairs as per the funds available with it and it cannot be a defense that the Contractor should bear the brunt of non-payment for years, of works executed by him.”
2 2025 SCC online SC 1400 3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035
In Kashmir Wood Products v. Verinag Development Authority and Others4, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir, held in Para No.8, which is usefully extracted hereunder:
“8. It is astonishing to note that despite there being no dispute as regards the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have sit over the matter for the last more than six years and they have not released the payment in favour of the petitioner. If the requisite funds were not available with the respondents, they had no business to allot the work to 4 the petitioner and if in spite of financial constraints, the respondents have made the petitioner to execute the work out of his own funds, it is their bounden duty to reimburse the petitioner at the earliest, that too with interest.”
Given the discussions supra, coupled with the instructions furnished by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Mandal Praja Parishad, Kondapi – 7th respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the amount of Rs.9,05,908/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Five Thousand Nine Hundred and Eight 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: 17.03.2026 SNI
4 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814
308 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 23957 of 2025
Date: 17.03.2026 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.