BharatTaxGST

B Gnanasekhar Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/10913/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01020928202508 March 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI6 pages
For Petitioner: VUTUPALLI RAJANNAFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010209282025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10913/2025 Between: 1. B GNANASEKHAR REDDY, S/O B.C.AMARANADH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, RESIDENT OF BODUMALLUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, FILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYATRAJ AND, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, AMARAVATHI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, , PANCHAYATRAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 6. THE GRAMPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, PILER, PILER MANDAL, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2 ...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, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of Rs.3,97,273/- with regard to providing internal CC road from Kadapa road to Rajanna house at Sriram Nagar H/o Bodumalluvaripalli, Filer Mandal vide M.Book No.7255/C/22, Rs.3,86,490/- for providing internal CC road from Venkata Reddemma house to Balaraju House at Manikanta Nagar H/o Bodumalluvaripalli village. Filer Mandal vide M.Book NO.7253/C/2022, Rs.3,39,031/- for providing internal CC road from Saraswathi house to Amrutha House at Manikanta Nagar H/o Bodumalluvaripalli village, Filer Mandal, vide M.Book NO.7249/C/2022 and Rs.4,06,063/- for providing CC road from Rajanna house to Suresh Kumar Reddy house at Sriram Nagar H/o Bodumalluvaripalli village. Filer Mandal vide M.Book NO.7254/C/2022, total an amount of Rs. 15,30,857/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred and fifty seven only) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment an amount of Rs. 15,30,857/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred and fifty seven only) along with interest at the rate of 24 per annum for the delayed payment to the petitioner in respect of the above mentioned works forthwith and pas 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 pay an amount of Rs.3,97,273/- vide M.Book N0.7255/C/22, Rs.3,86,490/- vide M.Book No.7253/C/2022, Rs.3,39,031/- vide M.Book No.7249/C/2022 and Rs.4,06,063/- vide M.Book NO.7254/C/2022, total an amount of Rs. 15,30,857/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs thirty thousand eight hundred and fifty seven only) to the petitioner, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VUTUPALLI RAJANNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 3 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

::ORDER::

Heard Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1 to 5 and Ms. Kavitha, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 6th respondent.

2.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the balance amount of Rs.15,30,857/- in relation to the works executed by the petitioner i.e., 1) Providing internal CC road from Kadapa road to Rajanna house at Sri Ram Nagar, H/o Bodumalluvaripalli, Piler Mandal, 2) Providing internal CC road from Venkata Reddemma house to Balaraju house at Manikanta Nagar, H/o Bodumalluvaripalli, Piler Mandal, 3) Providing CC road from Rajanna house to Suresh Kumar Reddy house at Sriram Nagar, H/o Bodumalluvaripalli, Piler Mandal and 4) Providing CC road from Saraswathi house to Amrutha house at Manikanta Nagar, H/o Bodumalluvaripalli, Piler Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted instructions of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Madanapalle – 5th respondent dated 09.03.2026. 4

4.

As seen from the instructions, the total value of the works done by the petitioner in relation to the aforementioned works is Rs.19,11,081/-. After QC recovery of Rs.2,24,268/-, and the balance amount payable to the petitioner including GST amount comes to Rs.16,86,813/-.

5.

In reply, Sri Vutupalli Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses that the balance amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.16,86,813/-.

6.

Thus, as seen from the instructions and the submission of learned counsel on either side, there is no dispute regarding the balance amount of Rs.16,86,813/- payable to the petitioner. 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.”.

7.

Given the submission of learned counsel on either, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release the balance amount of Rs.16,86,813/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Eight Hundred

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

5

and Thirteen only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the 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: 09.03.2026 SNI

6

237 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 10913 of 2025

Date: 09.03.2026 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.