Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

2026:APHC:33132

WRIT PETITION NO: 21407/2023

Between:
1. AMMISETTY SIVA SANKAR RAO, S/O ROSAIAH, AGED. 67 YEARS,
OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. VENKATAKRISHNA PURAM VILLAGE,
PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI,
AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, NH -16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PANCHAYAT WING, GUNTUR,
GUNTUR DISTRICT.
4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ DIVISION,
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI SUB-DIVISION,
PONNUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MPP,PEDAKAKANI
MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP.BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY CUM- PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, VENKATAKRISHNAPURAM
VILLAGE, PEDAKAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS, PRINCIPAL
SECRATARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING,
SECRATERIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT
9. DHULIPALLA VENKATESWARA RAO, S/O MALLIKHARJUNA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, SARPANCH, VENKATA KRISHNAPURAM
GRAM PANCHAYAT, PEDA KAKANI MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
R9 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT,
DT.07.10.2023 VIDE ORDER PASSED IN I.A.2 OF 2023.
...RESPONDENT(S)

WEDNESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Souri Babu Duppati
For the Respondents: GP For Finance Planning, GP For Panchayat Raj Rural Dev, Subba Rao Korrapati, Mattegunta.Sudhir

The High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, will not adjudicate upon hotly disputed questions of fact, particularly concerning monetary claims arising from alleged contracts where authorization and execution of work are severely contested.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact - Monetary claims arising out of alleged contractual obligations - Petitioner asserted supply of material and execution of works under MGNREGS - Financial claims not supported by authorized work allotment or clear documentary evidence - Respondent authorities disputed the petitioner’s authority and participation - Court held that highly disputed questions of fact regarding material supply and work execution are not to be adjudicated in writ proceedings - Petitioner relegated to civil court. (Paras 10, 13, 16)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner approached the court seeking a writ of mandamus for the release of funds regarding the construction of a Grama Sachivalayam under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS). The petitioner claimed to have supplied material and partially executed works. Respondents contested the locus and authorization of the petitioner, asserting that the works were to be executed by the Gram Panchayat as per established procedures and previous court orders.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner failed to prove authorization or legal entitlement to receive the payment. Discrepancies in the records and inconsistencies in counter-affidavits filed by the official respondents created significant factual disputes. The court determined that such matters, which require detailed investigation of evidence, fall outside the scope of Article 226.

Issues: Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 to seek payment for contractual works involving factual disputes and lack of authorization.

Ratio Decidendi: High Courts exercise discretionary power under Article 226 and generally do not adjudicate upon hotly disputed questions of fact or complex money claims arising from contractual obligations, especially when no public character is clearly established.

Result: Writ petition dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court.

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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not releasing funds with the Measurement Book No. 537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019-20 for construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishna Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS) funds as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the amounts with interest as per the aforesaid Measurement Book Number under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS), forthwith to the petitioner 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 pay the amounts payable to the petitioner regarding works executed by the petitioner with the Measurement Book number M.Book No.537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019- 20 for construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishna Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme(MGNREGS) funds with the total cost of Rs. 6,41,977/- for the aforesaid works, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

IA NO: 2 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 implead the Petitioner/Proposed Respondent No.9 as Respondent NO.9 in the Writ Petition No.21407/2023 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 may be pleased to grant leave to the petitioner/Respondent No.9 in WP to file counter affidavit in WP 21407 of 2023 and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SOURI BABU DUPPATI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

3. SUBBA RAO KORRAPATI

4. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri D.Souri Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 6 and 8, Sri Hruthik, learned counsel representing Sri M.Sudhir, learned Standing counsel for the 7th respondent and Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the 9th respondent.

2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount as mentioned in the Measurement Book No.537/B/PRI/MGNREGS/2019-20, for the construction of Grama Sachivalayam in Venkata Krishan Puram Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur District under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Development Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), as illegal and arbitrary.

3. The averments, in brief, in the affidavit are that the petitioner supplied the material for the construction of Gram Sachivalayam. The estimated cost of the work is Rs.40 lakhs. The material supplied by the petitioner was recorded in M-Books. The petitioner was also entrusted with the execution of the works worth Rs.6,41,977/-, and the petitioner partly completed the works. However, the petitioner has not received any amount. The Executive Engineer, Deputy Engineer and Assistant Engineer inspected the work and issued M-Books. The petitioner approached the respondents on several occasions to release the amount. However, the amount was not released. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

4. The 6th respondent filed counter affidavit and an additional counter-affidavit, contending, inter alia, that the District Collector and the District Prog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 11131

The High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, will not adjudicate upon hotly disputed questions of fact, particularly concerning monetary claims arising from alleged contracts where authorization and execution of work are severely contested.

Cases Referred (1)