A State instrumentality cannot deny payment of admitted dues for executed works on the grounds of financial incapacity or paucity of funds, and such money claims are maintainable under writ jurisdiction.

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 tomay be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments of Rs. 50,73,264/-, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work for Amount of Rs. 50,73,264/-, for the work Construction of Tahslidar Office Building at Gopalapuram (V) and (M) in West Godavari District, is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs. 50,73,264/- forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner 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 may be pleased to direct respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 50,73,264/- for the works executed by the petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass

The Court made the following:

ORDER:-

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following main prayer:

“….to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payments of Rs.50,73,264/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the work for Amount of Rs.50,73,264/- for the work Construction of Tahslidar Office Building at Gopalapuram (V) and (M) in West Godavari District is as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release Rs.50,73,264/- forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner and pass….”

The sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioner challenged the action of the respondents in not releasing the amounts even after completion of the entire works entrusted to her.

Heard Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L. Radha Krishna, counsel representing Sri V.C.H. Naidu, learned Standing Counsel for APEWIDC appearing for respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioner is facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, places a copy of the written instructions dated 29.04.2026 issued by the concerned authority of the Corporation and submits that six months’ time may be granted for paying the admitted amount of Rs.50,73,264/- to the petitioner.

Since it is not in dispute that the petitioner completed the works and has yet to receive payment, this Court finds the respondents’ failure to pay is unjustified. However, taking into consideration of the ground realities to settle the admitted amounts, the respondents are granted rational time to settle the dues.

Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held in Utkal Highways Engineers and Contractor Vs Chief General Manager and Others ¹(2025) SCC Online SC 1400, in vivid terms categorically held in the following manner.

“8. 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…..”

It is apt to note that a mere financial incapacity/poor financial conditions, as stated by the respondent Co