Disposed

P.P.Raju and Company, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Oct 2021WP/21741/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition filed under Article 226, the petitioner sought Mandamus to compel release of certified payments for school construction. The single judge directed the respondents to dispose of a pending representation from 16.8.2021 within eight weeks, without adjudicating merits, citing Supreme Court guidance on judicial discretion.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 16.8.2021 within eight weeks.

P.P.Raju and Company, Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.21741 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶5

of India seeking the following relief:-

¶6

“……to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more so, a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, by declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the payment for the work certified by the respondents in respect of the work of construction of school building at Sakamuri Village, as per work order and agreement dated 20.02.2019, amounting to Rs.90.52 lakhs along with interest as arbitrary, illegal, high handed and unconstitutional and consequentially to direct the respondents to forthwith release of the payment with interest to the petitioner for the works done by the petitioner pursuant to the agreement No.71-CE/H&BO/SVSakamuri/2018-19, dated 20.02.2019 in interests of justice and equity.”

¶7

Though the petitioner made several allegations against the respondents, during hearing, Sri Hari Babu Manne, learned counsel for the petitioner, limited his request to direct the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner, dated 16.8.2021, without touching the merits of the case.

¶8

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipalities and Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for AMRDA/CRDA, appearing for the respondents readily agreed to take appropriate action on the representation submitted by the petitioner, if any, pending with the respondent authorities.

¶9

In view of the submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipalities and the learned Standing Counsel for AMRDA/CRDA, 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

¶10

¶11

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 in overburdened adjudicatory institutions. But, they do no service to the cause of justice. As the learned counsel for the petitioner himself requested to issue a direction to respondent authorities to dispose of the representation, dated 16.8.2021 submitted by the petitioner, I find no other alternative, except to issue such direction.

¶12

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to dispose of the representation, dated 16.8.2021, submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, within eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶15

Date : 21.10.2021 AMD

¶16

1 2019 (8) SCALE 544

¶17

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.21741 OF 2021

¶20

Date : 21.10.2021

¶21

AMD

P.P.Raju and Company, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.P.Raju and Company, v. State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Smt Swapna Rani Panda Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Karakala Madhava Swamy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Guntuboyina Sirisha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

T. Rudramurthy Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh

R. Ramanjineyulu, Vs Smt. Y. Srilakshmi

Gullapalli Sooribabu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh