Facts of the Case

The petitioner, a road-works contractor, sought release of Rs. 1,59,61,866/- payable for two urgent road-repair works executed in Udayagiri Constituency, S.P.S. Nellore District, under Agreement No. 21/2022-23. The respondent (Superintending Engineer, Panchayat Raj) admitted in its counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. 1,59,84,371/- (excluding GST) was payable after statutory deductions. The dispute is essentially a contractual payment claim; GST is referenced only as a component excluded from the admitted bill figure, and the case does not turn on any point of GST law.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a writ petition was maintainable to claim release of amounts admittedly due to the petitioner for executed works, given the general rule of relegating contractual disputes to alternative remedies.
  2. Whether the respondents' inaction in releasing the admitted bill payment was illegal and arbitrary.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The respondents had not released payment due for works already executed under the agreement, which was illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
  • The petitioner sought release of Rs. 1,59,61,866/- (later clarified as Rs. 1,59,84,371/- net of GST as per the respondent's own counter-affidavit) for the executed works.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Respondent no.3's counter-affidavit itself admitted that Rs. 1,59,84,371/- (excluding GST), after statutory deductions from the gross amount of Rs. 1,98,23,298/- (including a QC recovery amount), was payable to the petitioner under the agreement.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court noted that since the amount payable was admitted and undisputed in the counter-affidavit, the writ petition was maintainable notwithstanding the general rule against adjudicating money claims in writ jurisdiction.
  • Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in M/s Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractors v. Chief General Manager, it held that non-payment of admitted dues can amount to arbitrary State action for which a writ petition may lie.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing the respondents to release Rs. 1,59,84,371/- payable to the petitioner within six months from receipt of the order, with no order as to costs.

Important Clarification

This case does not decide any GST law point — GST was simply the figure excluded from the payable amount as per the government's own accounting. The broader takeaway for government contractors is procedural: once a department admits an amount is due in its own counter-affidavit, a writ petition can be used to compel payment even for a money claim.

Sections Involved

  • Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 14 and 21, and Article 226, under which the writ petition was filed.
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — referenced only as the tax component excluded from the admitted net bill amount.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the petitioner — the respondents were directed to release the admitted bill amount within six months.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
  • Case Number: Writ Petition No. 33208 of 2025
  • Coram: Hon'ble Sri Justice Subba Reddy Satti
  • Date of Order: 23.04.2026

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.