BharatTaxGST

M/S. Sri Subrahmanya Constructions vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/29529/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01056903202517 February 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI4 pages
For Petitioner: RAMBABU KOPPINEEDIFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010569032025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 29529/2025 Between: 1. M/S. SRI SUBRAHMANYA CONSTRUCTIONS, FLAT NO.403, D.NO. 1-173/36, ANNAPURNA ARCADE, MIDILAPURI COLONY, MADHURAWADA, VISAKHAPATNAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ANNABATTULA RAM KIRAN. 2. ANNABATTULA RAM KIRAN,, S/O. NARSINGA RAO (LATE), AGED 41 YEARS OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O. D.NO. 55-14-74/3, FLAT NO. 102, SAI SRI NIVAS, SEETHAMMADHARA, APSEB COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ, Z.P.COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO PWD GROUNDS, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 5. THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 6. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (P.R.I) DIVISION ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 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, Order, or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs.8,93,927/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioners in relation to the works under GGMP Grant i.e., i) Construction of Community Hall at Timiram GP of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement No./2023-24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.5,21,834/- and ii) Construction of Community Hall at Venkatarajupalem Village of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement NO./2023- 24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.3,72,093/- totaling an amount of Rs.8,93,927/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs.8,93,927/- to the petitioners in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith 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 consider for payment of amount of Rs.8,93,927/- to the petitioners in respect of execution of works under GGMP Grant i.e., i) Construction of Community Hall at Timiram GP of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement No./2023-24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.5,21,834/- and ii) Construction of Community Hall at Venkatarajupalem Village of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement No./2023-24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.3,72,093/- totaling an amount of Rs.8,93,927/- forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

ORDER

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

2.

The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs.8,93,927/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioners in relation to the works under GGMP Grant i.e., i) Construction of Community Hall at Timiram GP of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement No./2023-24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.5,21,834/- and ii) Construction of Community Hall at Venkatarajupalem Village of Devarapalli Mandal in Anakapalli District through the Agreement NO./2023-24, dated 11-09-2023 for an amount of Rs.3,72,093/- totaling an amount of Rs.8,93,927/-, as illegal and arbitrary.

3.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, submitted the written instructions of the 6th respondent.

4.

A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned works and the petitioner claimed the amount as personal bill schedule „A‟ prepared by the Assistant Engineer. But the petitioner concluded the agreement with Executive Engineer. As per the agreement entered with the Executive Engineer schedule „B‟, GST amount is also to be paid to the petitioner. However, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,93,927/- and the same is admitted. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also endorses the same.

6.

Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of works and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.8,93,927/-. Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors Vs. 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 instructions furnished by the 6th respondent, the Writ Petition is Disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.8,93,927/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Twenty Seven only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned works, 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 PVD

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

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.