Disposed

Madala Siva Manikyala Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Aug 2021WP/12716/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Court order disposing of a writ petition where the petitioner sought release of unpaid bills. The court, relying on a Supreme Court precedent against disposing cases summarily only for speed, nevertheless issued a direction to the respondent authority to dispose of a specific pending representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.07.2020 within six weeks.

Madala Siva Manikyala Rao Vs the State of Ap — Andhra Pradesh HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.12716 OF 2021

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶4

of India seeking the following relief:

¶5

“To issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representations of the petitioner for considering to release the final bill vide Reference No.16/SE(H&B)/Police Barrack near Undavalli Caves//2018-19 dated 05.10.2018 for the works completed and certified by the respondents amounting to Rs.28,70,778/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Seventy Thousand, Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight only) though sanctioned by proceedings dated 02.07.2020 as arbitrary, illegal, high handed and unconstitutional and consequentially to direct the respondents to forthwith consider and release the payment to the petitioner as per proceedings dated 02.07.2020.”

¶6

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, without touching the merits of the case, to issue a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.07.2020.

¶7

Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader for Amaravathi Metropolitan Region Development Authority readily agreed to dispose of the representation of the dated 30.07.2020, if any pending with the authorities.

¶8

In view of the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for Amaravathi Metropolitan Region Development Authority, I need not decide the truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the petition. This Court is conscious that no such direction be issued, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in “ The Government of India v. P.Venkatesh¹ ”, wherein the Apex Court held that such orders may make for a quick or easy disposal of cases

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

MSM,J WP_12716_2021

in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no serve to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.07.2020, I find no other alternative except to issue such direction.

¶13

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 30.07.2020 within six (06) weeks from today. No costs.

¶14

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶15

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶16

Date:16.08.2021 SP

Madala Siva Manikyala Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madala Siva Manikyala Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Varalakshmi, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh

Smt B.Srinidhi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.B. Pantulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kanakarajulu Naidu, Vs Sri B.Rajasekhar,Ias.

M.Radha Krishnaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Velivela Sarojini Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh