M Ramana Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/6156/2025HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01010694202508 September 2026Bench: K SREENIVASA REDDY6 pages
For Petitioner: VENKAT SAILENDRA GFor Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010106942025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 6156/2025 Between: 1. M RAMANA REDDY, S/O. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O. PUSALAPADU (V),BESTAVARIPETA (M) PRAKASANN DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE DIVISION, BHIMAVARAM, WG DISTRICT. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SECTION, PEDAPADU, WG DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DRAINAGE SUB-DIVISION, AKIVEEDU, WG 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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one 2 SRK, J WP.No.6156 of 2025 in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing an amount of Rs. 33,90,829/- GST amount to the petitioner for the execution of works, Vide Agreement No. 36/2021-22, dated 31.05.2021, respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at 18 perCENT annum and to 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 respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 33,90,829/- GST amount to the petitioner for the execution of works. Vide Agreement No. 36/2021-22, dated 31.05.2021, respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKAT SAILENDRA G Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 SRK, J WP.No.6156 of 2025

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:

“….to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing an amount of Rs. 33,90,829/- GST amount to the petitioner for the execution of works, Vide Agreement No. 36/2021-22, dated 31.05.2021, respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioner with an interest at 18% annum and pass such other order…”

2.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance.

3.

Case of the petitioner is that he was awarded the work of O&M – Desilting in Vatluru Major Drain from KM 8.00 to KM 9.500 of Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, by the 3rd respondent, vide Agreement No.36/2021-22, dated 31.05.2021. It is the case of the petitioner that, upon satisfactory execution of the said work, the respondent authorities prepared the bills and quantified the amount payable to him towards the work executed. However, the respondent authorities have not released any payment to the petitioner till date.

4.

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

5.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, on written instructions, received from the Executive Engineer, Drainage Division, Bhimavaram-3rd respondent, submits that there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the subject work by the petitioner viz. O&M – Desilting in Vatluru Major Drain from KM 8.000 to KM 9.500 of Pedapadu Mandal, West Godavari District, vide Agreement No.36/2021-22, dated 31.05.2021. It is submitted that the reason for not processing the bill is that the petitioner/contractor has not signed the Release and Discharge Certificate and the bill forms, nor has he signed the Acceptance Measurements recorded in the Measurement Book. Consequently, the Measurement Book could not be finalized and the bill could not be processed for payment to the petitioner. The written instructions are placed on record.

6.

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.

Having regard to the fact that there is no dispute with regard to the work executed by the petitioner or the amount payable to him, and in view of the submissions made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent authorities and sign the relevant documents. Thereafter, the respondent authorities are directed to 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1400 finalize the Measurement Book and release the admitted amount payable to the petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8.

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

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date: 09.09.2026. MS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

Writ Petition No:6156 of 2025 Date: 09.09.2026

MS

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.