BharatTaxGST

Vankela Sudhakar Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/31474/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01060511202503 February 2026Bench: SUBBA REDDY SATTI5 pages
For Petitioner: DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLAFor Respondent: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner sought payment for completed works, including materials and GST, amounting to Rs. 2,14,499. The respondents withheld these payments. The court was considering a writ petition for the release of these pending amounts.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had executed the work and was entitled to payment. Since the amount payable was admitted and undisputed, the writ petition was maintainable for the release of admitted dues.

Key Issues

The primary issue was the legality and arbitrariness of the respondents withholding payments for completed works. The court also considered the maintainability of a writ petition for the recovery of admitted dues.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010605112025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31474/2025 Between: 1. VANKELA SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O V RAMI REDDY, AGED 69 YEARS, R/O D.NO.202, PRINARKS SUGUNA RESIDENCY, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, KONDAPUR, SERILINGAMPALLI, K V RANGA REDDY, TELANGANA STATE. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ, KAVALI, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT. 4. THE PAY AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, SOMASILA PROJECT,SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT 5. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Page 2 of 5 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 an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payments of pending amounts of Rs.2,14,499/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) which includes Rs.1,21,680/- Rs.57603/- and Rs.35,216/-) for. works namely Laying of CC roads in Ankireddypalli BIT-2 in Balayapalli G P of S R Puram Mandal and Laying of CC road in P R Road to Ankireddypalli (V) in Balayapalli G P, dt.07-09-2018 with interest to the Petitioner even through total works were executed and completed as illegal ,arbitrary and violation of article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.2,14,499/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) which includes Rs.1,21,680/- pertaining to work namely Laying of CC roads in Ankireddypalli BIT-2 in Balayapalli G P of S R Puram Mandal and Rs.57,603/- pertaining to work namely Laying of CC road in P R Road to Ankireddypalli (V) in Balayapalli G P and Rs.35,216/- for Material like Cement Bags, Metal etc., along with GST) with interest to the petitioner forthwith pass 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 Pleased to direct the respondents to forthwith consider releasing the amounts Rs.2,14,499/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fourteen Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Nine only) which includes Rs.1,21,680/-; Rs.57603/- and Rs.35,216/- ) payable to the petitioner herein, pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: Page 3 of 5

::ORDER ::

Heard Sri Smt. Devasri Roshan K., learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. Naga Chandrika, 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 not releasing an amount of Rs.2,14,499/- in relation to the works executed by the petitioner i.e. „1) Laying CC roads in Ankireddypalli BIT 2 in Balayapalli GP of SR Puram Mandal and 2) Laying of CC road in PR Road to Ankireddypalli V in Balayapalli GP of S.R. Puram Mandal, 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 respondent No.3. 4. A perusal of the said instructions would disclose that the petitioner has executed the aforementioned work and the net amount payable to the petitioner after statutory deductions is Rs.2,03,743/-. The written instructions are made as part of the record.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.

6.

Thus, as seen from the instructions there is no dispute regarding the execution of the aforementioned work and the petitioner‟s entitlement for Rs.2,03,743/-. 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 instructions furnished by respondent No.3, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.2,03,743/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Forty Three only) payable to the petitioner regarding execution of the aforementioned work, within two (02) 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: 04.02.2026 IKN

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

WRIT PETITION NO: 31474 of 2025

Date: 04.02.2026 IKN

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.