Court Directs Payment of Rs. 29.58 Lakhs in Pending Construction Contracts, Clarifies Court Fee Requirements
In a significant judgment delivered on February 24, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided by Justice Subba Reddy Satti, ruled in favor of the petitioner Kota Venkata Narayana, directing the State of Andhra Pradesh and associated respondents to release a sum of Rs. 29,58,648 for construction works completed under multiple agreements. The case centered around the non-payment for construction of concrete drains in Muppala village, Chandralapadu Mandal, NTR District, and raised important questions about the maintainability of writ petitions in contractual disputes and the payment of court fees in such cases.
The petitioner, represented by counsel Sri D.V. Sasidhar, had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to compel the state authorities to release funds related to 19 separate construction agreements. The court confirmed that writ petitions are maintainable in contractual matters unless they involve disputed questions of fact, emphasizing that the writ jurisdiction can be exercised to address arbitrary or unreasonable actions by the State.
The judgment also addressed the issue of court fees, clarifying that when a writ petition involves multiple agreements with distinct causes of action, aggregate court fees must be paid as prescribed under Section 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (APCF and SV Act). The court instructed the petitioner to pay a deficit court fee of Rs. 1,800, underscoring that the fee prescribed under the APCF and SV Act is a "fee" and not a "tax," aimed at facilitating the administration of justice rather than generating revenue.
Furthermore, the court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to issue a circular to ensure compliance with the requirement for payment of aggregate court fees in similar writ petitions. This directive aims to streamline the filing process for writ petitions involving multiple agreements, thereby reducing administrative ambiguities and ensuring clarity in court fee obligations.
This judgment is a reminder of the evolving judicial perspective on the use of writ petitions in addressing disputes arising from government contracts, reaffirming the court's role in safeguarding constitutional mandates against arbitrary state actions. It also highlights the careful balance courts must strike in ensuring justice while adhering to statutory provisions regarding court fees.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable even in contractual matters, provided the cause of action is distinct and separate; however, aggregate court fee must be paid as per Section 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956 (APCF and SV Act).
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 6(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1956
Kota Venkata Narayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879403
