G. Krishna Mohan Naidu vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development.

The petitioner is a Class-I Contractor who undertook the work sanctioned vide G.O.Rt.No.14 dated 03.01.2019 of “Providing BT Renewals to the road from Pedaballi–Settipalli Road to Buggapalli (V), Puttaparthy Mandal” under Agreement No. 7/2020-21, dated 23.03.2021. The work was duly completed within the stipulated period and was inspected, verified, entered in the M-Book, and quality control inspection was also completed by the respondents after due verification of the work. Despite completion and acceptance of the work, the respondents have failed to release the admitted bill amount of Rs.7,00,736/- to the him. Despite repeated requests made by the petitioner for payment of the bill, respondents continued to drag the matter on one pretext or another. It is the case of the petitioner that he borrowed money on interest to execute the work and is suffering serious financial hardship due to non-payment of admitted bill amount.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the completion of the work and its measurement by the competent authorities, the amount due towards the executed work has not been paid till date. According to the petitioner, although the work was completed more than 4½ years ago, the respondent authorities have not released the admitted amount payable to him. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the said amount, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions dated 15.07.2026, from the Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District, submits that there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the work. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.6,29,744/- after statutory deductions such as IT, SGST, CGST, Seigniorage charges, LC and F , aggregating to Rs.70,992/-, and that LS 2nd & Final Bill for the work was scrutinized and prepared by the office of Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Puttaparthi, Sri Sathya Sai District for a gross amount of Rs.7,00,736/- and a net amount of Rs.6,29,744/- and that the bill was submitted to the office of the Executive Engineer, PR PIU Division, Ananthapuramu, for payment, requests for release of budget to process the bill were also submitted to the higher authorities vide office letters dated 01.06.2026 and 11.05.2026, and six months’ time is sought for payment of the said amount. The written instructions are placed on record.

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.”

Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the work executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to him, and in view of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the respondent authorities are directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,29,744/- (Rupees six lakhs twenty nine thousand seven hundred and forty four only) to the petitioner

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.