Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korivi Sivaji vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 January, 2026
APHC010613532023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 31562/2023
Between:
1. KORIVI SIVAJI, S/O. VENKATRAO, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC.
CULTIVATION, R/O. 2-21/1, DARAKANIPADU, GUDLURU MANDAL,
S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT (ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM)
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ ANDRURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DPC, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR DIVISION, KANDUKUR, SPSR
NELLORE DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM)
6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MANDAL
PRAJAPARISHAD, GUDLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM).
2
7. THE DARAKANIPADU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS
SECRETARY, GUDLURU MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE
DISTRICT(ERSTWHILE PRAKASAM).
...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 or order or a direction more particularly
one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the
respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.2,10,065/- even after
finalizing bill long back for execution of work for Solid Waste Management
vide its works ID No.081175411009170263, M.Book No.22759 under
MGNREGS in Darakanipadu Gramapanchayati, Gudluru Mandal, which is
illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice,
consequently direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.2,10,065/- to the
petitioner with the interest of 18PERCENT immediately, and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2023
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 amounts of Rs.2,10,065/- for execution
of work for Solid Waste Management vide its works ID
No.081175411009170263, M.Book No.22759 under MGNREGS in
Darakanipadu Gramapanchayati, Gudluru Mandal, immediately, pending
disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV
3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram
Panchayats
The Court made the following:
3
::ORDER ::
Heard Sri B.Sanjay Gandhi, learned counsel representing Sri Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Finance and Planning, appeared for the respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel, appeared for respondents 6 and 7.
2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.2,10,065/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ten Thousand and Sixty Five only) payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Solid Waste Management vide works ID.No.081175411009170263, M.Book No.22759 under MGNREGS, Darakanipadu Gram Panchayat, Gudluru Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 7th respondent, Gram Panchayat, entrusted various works to the petitioner on a nomination basis. The petitioner supplied material and completed the works. The authorities inspected and recorded the same in M.Books. The total amount payable to the petitioner is Rs.2,10,065/- (Rupees Two Lakh Ten Thousand and Sixty Five only). However, the respondent authorities transferred a bill amount of Rs.1,89,059/-, after deductions, to Account No.060701002118, IFSC Code:ICIC0000607 instead of the petitioner's Account No.069701002118, IFSC Code:ICIC0000697. The request made by the 4 petitioner to rectify the mistake did not yield any result. Hence, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.
4. The writ petition was listed on 07.12.2023 and adjourned at the request of the learned Government Pleader and learned Standing counsel to get instructions. Though the writ petition was adjourned on five occasions, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far.
5. Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel, submitted the written instructions of Mandal Parishad Development Officer (MPDO), dated 03.12.2025, the relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder:
"It is humbly submitted that Petitioner got paid partial payment amount of Rs.2,64,940/- by the Project Director, DWMA (District Water Management Agency) for the work relating to the Construction of a Solid Waste Processing Centre. It is further submitted that the balance amount of Rs.1,89,059/- is also transferred by the Project Director, DWMA, but due to typographical error the amount was transferred to another account in ICICI Bank, Ambattur, Chennai. It is also submitted that the Project Director, DWMA has requested the ICICI Bank to return back the amount which was transferred due to typographical error, but the said Bank is not concerned about the issue."
6. Thus, as seen from the instructions, there is no dispute concerning the petitioner's entitlement to the amount of Rs.1,89,059/-. The transfer of the said amount to a wrong account occurred due to an error on the part of the respondent authorities, and the petitioner cannot be penalised. Since there is no dispute regarding the petitioner's entitlement and the amount payable is admitted and undisputed, the writ petition is maintainable. In M/s Utkal 5 Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager & Ors 1, 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 jurisdiction. 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 facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.1,89,059/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand and Fifty Nine only) payable to the petitioner regarding the aforementioned work done by the petitioner, 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: 28.01.2026 SNI 1 2025 SCC online SC 1400 6 183 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 31562 OF 2023 Date: 28.01.2026 SNI