M/S Sri Dheirma Shasta Contractors vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

M/S SRI DHEIRMA SHASTA CONTRACTORS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER A MURALI MOHAN RAO, S/O. A VENKATA NARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. 18-91, KONDAPETA, BANAGANAPALLI, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, PINCODE 518124. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DM RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI,

THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NH16 SERVICE ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, MG ROAD, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AP CFMS OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT RR 9 AND 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE CO DT.23.10.2024 VIDE ORDERS PASSED IN IA NO.2 OF 2024. ...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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amounts of Rs.31,22,437/- vide M Book No.0496-B, Rs.33,99,935/- vide M Book NO.0484-B and Rs. 1,75,20,786/- vide M Book N0.I888A, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., PACKAGE NO.APAM/NDlLBanaganapalli 04, Consisting of 3 Roads Works in Banaganapalli Constituency of Nandyal District, under AMC Grant vide Agreement No. 2022-23, dated 16.08.2022 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amounts of Rs.31,22,437/- vide M Book No.0496-B, Rs.33,99,935/- vide M Book No.0484-B and Rs. 1,75,20,786/- vide M Book N0.I888A with interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 may please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs.31,22,437/- vide M Book No.0496-B, Rs.33,99,935/- vide M Book NO.0484-B & Rs. 1,75,20,786/- vide M Book N0.I888A with interest @24%

Heard Sri B. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, appeared for the respondents.

A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.

In para No.6, it was mentioned that the Gross amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,35,56,926/-, including quality control charges, GST and NAC. Along with the counter-affidavit, the communication from the Executive Engineer to the Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj Circle, vide Lr.RC.No.A3/TO/Court Cases/2025, dated 10.07.2025, was annexed. As seen from the said communication, the net amount payable to the petitioner, after statutory deductions, is Rs.2,14,64,428/-.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as per the communication dated 10.07.2025. 5. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.2,14,64,428/-. 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 facts and circumstances of the, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,14,64,428/-