Sri G. Venkateshwara Rao vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Original PDF →
WP/18754/2026HC Andhra PradeshGSTCNR APHC01034843202601 September 2026Bench: K SREENIVASA REDDY6 pages
For Petitioner: A.SREE RAMFor Respondent: GP FOR IRRI AND CAD, GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
APHC010348432026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] WEDNESDAY, THE 2nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 18754/2026 Between: 1. SRI G. VENKATESHWARA RAO,, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC CONTRACTOR, R/O D NO 7-29-21, MAHALAKSHMI NAGAR, ROAD NO.4, TADEPALLIGUDEM, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIN 534102 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., PIN . 522237. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST., PIN . 522237. 3. THE ENGINEER IN CHIEF, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MUSEUM RD, VENKATESHWARA RAO STREET, GOVERNORPETA, VIJAYAWADA. PIN . 520002. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, GODAVARI HEAD WORKS DIVISION, DOWALESWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIN . 533125. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, GODAVARI HEAD WORKS DIVISION, DOWALESWARAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. PIN .533125. ...RESPONDENT(S): SRK,J W.P No.18754 of 2026 2 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 topleased to issue order or orders, direction or directions. Writ or Writs particularly one in the nature Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the Final net Bill to a tune of Amount of Rs. 20,87,420/- for 4 works i.e., (1) Agreement No. 04/2025-26, dt.07-07-2025 (2) Agreement No. 05/2025-26, dt.07-07-2025, (3) Agreement No. 08/2025-26, dt.07-07-2025 and (4) Agreement No. 10/2025- 26, dt.07-07-2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article - 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to release the bills to tune of amount Rs. 20,87,420/- with 18 percent GST and 6percent interest from the date of completion of respective works to till date immediateiy and to and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 release the amount of Rs. 20,87,420/- towards payment of above final bills for the contract works under taken by the petitioner long back, pending disposal of main Writ Petition, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.SREE RAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING SRK,J W.P No.18754 of 2026 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY Writ Petition No:18754 of 2026

The Court made the following Order:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue an order, writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ to declare the action of the respondents in not paying the Final net Bill to a tune of Amount of Rs 20,87,420/- for 4 works i.e., 1) Agreement No.04/2025- 26, dt.07.07.2025, 2) Agreement No.05/2025-26, dt.07.07.2025, 3) Agreement No.08/2025-26, dt.07.07.2025 and 4) Agreement No.10/2025-26 dt.07.07.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article - 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to release the bills to tune of amount Rs.20,87,420/- with 18% GST and 6% interest from the date of completion of respective works to till date immediately and to and pass such other order…”

2.

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

3.

The petitioner participated in the tender process for execution of subject works and became successful bidder and accordingly, entered into agreements with the respondents. It is the case of the petitioner that he deposited the requisite security amount and executed the works to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and upon completion of the works, the quality of the works was certified as satisfactory by the Quality Control Department. It is the case of the petitioner that he borrowed money on interest to execute the works and he is suffering serious financial hardship due to non- payment of admitted bill amount.

4.

It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the completion of the works, the amount due towards the executed works has not been paid till date. According to the petitioner, although the works were 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 filed the present Writ Petition.

5.

Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions dated 01.09.2026, from the Executive Engineer, Godavari Head Works Division, Dowlaiswaram - 5th respondent, 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.22,59,679/- after statutory deductions such as QC recovery/withheld/statutory recoveries aggregating to Rs.2,85,037/-. He further submits that the bills are uploaded in NIDHI module and are waiting for fund clearance. He sought time for payment of the said amount. The written instructions are placed on record.

6.

Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, 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 works executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to him, and in view

1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the amount of Rs.22,59,679/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy Nine) to the petitioner within a period of eight (08) weeks 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:02.09.2026. AG/VMM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

Writ Petition No:18754 of 2026

Date:02.09.2026. AG/VMM

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.