IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30486 of 2010 Between: Sri G. Ganga Ram ..... Petitioner AND The District Collector, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Bheema Rao Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri P. Raghavender Reddy The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.30486 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.4 in releasing a sum of Rs.75,000/- equivalent to 305 quintals of rice for the execution of work of Desilting of Minor Irrigation Tank at Tadkole Village, Bansuvada Mandal, Nizamabad District under 100% rice component and drought funds scheme, as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing counsel representing respondent No.4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he was elected as Sarpanch of Tadkole Village, that during the year 2003-04 under Drought Funds (100% Rice Component Scheme) respondent No.4 has accorded sanction of work of desilting of minor irrigation tank at Tadkole Village, Banswada Mandal for an estimate of Rs.75,000/-, that being the Sarpanch, the petitioner executed the said work in accordance with the scheme, that respondent No.2 vide his proceedings dated 13.05.2004 sanctioned the said work and that the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District vide his letter dated 03.11.2005 has directed respondent No.4 to release 304 quintals of rice towards the special component. The petitioner further pleaded that the work was completed in time and the measurements were recorded in the measurement book and that as payment was not released, he has caused a legal notice issued on 22.10.2009. That vide his letter dated 04.12.2009, respondent No.2 gave reply to the petitioner’s counsel to the effect that as per the instructions of the Civil Supplies Corporation, the rice under the scheme cannot be released and further requested the petitioner to approach the sanctioning department for release of the equivalent cash for the works completed by him and that the petitioner thereafter approached respondent No.4, who has not released the amount. Ordinarily, a writ for recovery of money is not maintainable. (see Godavari Sugar Mills Limited vs. State of Maharashtra and others[1]). However, if there is no dispute about the petitioner’s entitlement for payment of money, I do not find any justification for respondent No.4 to release the amount payable to the petitioner for the works executed by him. Accordingly, respondent No.4 is directed to consider the petitioner’s claim for payment of cash equivalent to the rice, take an appropriate decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by such decision, he shall be free to file a civil suit for recovery of the amount. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.38828 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 07.03.2011 ES [1] (2011) 2 SCC 439