Somuri Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

SOMURI CONSTRUCTIONS, REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR S. SRIKANTH, S/O. S. KRISHNAJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 16/324-5A, MACHAVARAM, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT - 521001. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT

THE A P STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD, 2ND FLOOR, SP RIVER VIEW BUILDING, TADEPALLI, AMARAVATI, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA NTR DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

Heard Sri A. Balakrishna, 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 1, 2, 4 to 7 and Sri K. Mallikarjuna Moorthy, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondent No.3. 3. 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 (FAC), PRI Division, Machilipatnam – respondent No.7. 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.65,53,876/-, and after QC recovery, i.e. Rs.18,46,991/-, the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.47,06,885/-. 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.47,06,885/-. 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.7, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.47,06,885/- payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within five (05) 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.