K. Gopala Krishna vs. The State Of Andhra Pradesh
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following order:
4
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.21572 OF 2026 ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “….to issue a Writ of Mandamus declare the inaction on part of the respondents herein not releasing the total final bills amount worth of Rs. 11,40,486/- plus 18percent GST, 1) Amount of Rs. 2,21,475/-, vide its Agreement No. 3/2024-25, Dt 24.06.2024 1502YRA, 2) Amount of Rs. 1,91,144/-, vide its Agreement No. 01/2024-25, Dt 24.06.2024 and vide M.Book.No. 1504YRA, 3) Amount of Rs. 2,39,431/-, vide its Agreement No. 41/2024-25, Dt 08.07.2024 1503YRA, 4) Amount of Rs. 3,53,249/-, vide its Agreement No. 02/2024-25, Dt 24.06.2024 and vide M.Book.No. 1501YRA, 5) Amount of Rs. 1,35,187/-, vide its Agreement No. 40/2024-25, Dt 08.07.2024 & Vide M.Book.No.1500YRA, with interest of execution of completion of works under Water Resource Department as per agreements to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total works were completed as per the agreements as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 of Constitution of India and
5
consequentially to direct the respondents releasing the final bills of total amount worth of Rs. 11,40,486/- plus 18percent GST for execution of completion of works under Water Resource Department as per agreement, to the petitioner forthwith……..….”
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for the respondents.
Case of the petitioner is that he was entrusted with the works of removal of weed growth of Palapu calava nundi surappcheruvu calava and patti kalava in Vakatippa Village of U.Kothapalli Mandal; removal of weed growth from Abbiraju yeru calava in Kutukundinipalli Village limits of U.Kothapalli Mandal; removal of weed growth of Kothapalli Panta calava Kothapalli village of U.Kothapalli Mandal; removal of weed growth from Kondayya calava, Komaragiri Panta Cheruvu calava, nadim calava, Ramdoddi calava, meraka calava, perageru chenu, ballalunudi badava calava in Komaragiri village limits of U.Kothapalli Mandal; and removal of weed growth from Batti calava in Gorsa village limits of U.Kothapalli Mandal; and duly executed the same to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned. Upon completion of the works, the
6
respondent authorities measured the works and recorded the measurements in the relevant Measurement Books. Despite completion of the works long ago, the respondent authorities failed to release the admitted amounts payable to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the non-payment of the said amounts, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, on written instructions dated 04.08.2026, from the Executive Engineer, Y.I.Division, Peddapuram, submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the execution of the subject works by the petitioner. He further submitted that the bills are not uploaded due to non-release of LOC. The written instructions are placed on record.
Since the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, writ Petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal Highways Engineer and Contractors V. Chief General Manager & Ors1, it was held at paragraph 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 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400
7
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 works executed by the petitioner and the amount payable to him, and in view of the submissions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation, the respondent authorities are directed to pay the admitted amount to the petitioner within a period of eight(8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ K.SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date: 08.09.2026. PAB
8
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.
DATE: .2026
PAB
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.