Plr Projects Private LTD vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
APHC010384412024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Juri iction) [3331] MONDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 19609/2024 Between:
PLR PROJECTS PRIVATE LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, C. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. INWINEX TOWERS, PLOT NO, 130, 3B, 3RD FLOOR, ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ-I, VIJAYAWADA.
THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI, MADANAPALLE,
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of the 86 Final Bill for a net amount of Rs.3,12,19,569/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., Construction of Approach road from Mangalampeta Kothapeta R86B Road to Elukadhonipeta of Pulicherla Mandal of Punganuru Constituency in Chittoor District vide Agreement No /2022- 23, Dt.29-03-2023, is questioned, as the same is illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider payment of the amount of Rs.3,12,19,569/- with interest @12 PERCENT per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of the execution of above- mentioned work, forthwith and pass 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 to direct the respondents to consider the payment of the 1ST AND Final Bill for a net amount of Rs.3,12,19,569/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work i.e., “Construction of Approach road from Mangalampeta Kothapeta R86B Road to Elukadhonipeta of Pulicherla Mandal of Punganuru Constituency in Chittoor District”, vide Agreement No: 2022-23, Dt.29-03-2023, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA 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 an amount of Rs.3,12,19,659/- relating to the work executed by the petitioner i.e. Construction of Approach road from Nagalampeta – Kothapeta R & B road to Elukadhonipeta of Pulicherla Mandal, Punganuru Constituency, Chittoor District, as illegal and arbitrary.
Heard Sri P. Anand Surya, learned counsel representing Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, 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.
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.4. 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.3,12,19,569/-, and the net amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.3,17,84,216/- (inclusive of GST). The written instructions are made as part of the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the amount payable to the petitioner as per the written instructions.
Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute regarding the execution of work and the petitioner’s entitlement for Rs.3,17,84,216/- (inclusive of 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
1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
of fact which by their very nature cannot be adjudicated upon without recording formal evidence.”.
Given the instructions furnished by respondent No.4, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3,17,84,216/- (inclusive of GST) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, within six (06) 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: 23.02.2026 TVN
268 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 19609 of 2024
Date: 23.02.2026 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.