Disposed

M. Siva Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Sept 2022WP/28817/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 for the release of an admitted subsidy amount of Rs.4,98,48,500/- for agricultural machinery, the court directed respondents to complete verification within four weeks and pay dues within six weeks following verification.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to complete verification within four weeks and pay admitted amount within six weeks thereafter.

M. Siva Babu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.37504 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶5

“…..to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount for supplying the machineries/equipments to the respondent authorities by the petitioner even though admitted amount is Rs.4,98,48,500/- (Four Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Eight Thousands Five Hundred Rupees Only) is illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unfair and violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Rules and Regulations and consequently, direct the Respondents to pay the admitted amounts of Rs.4,98,48,500/- (Four Crores Ninety Eight Lakhs Forty Eight Thousands Five Hundred Rupees Only) with cumulative interest.”

¶6

Heard Mr.Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Government Pleader for Agriculture, appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, appearing for the 2^nd respondent. Perused the material on record.

¶7

Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner’s firm supplied machineries like Tractors, Mini Tractors, Harvestors, Ballers, Rotovaters, Cultivators, etc., to the farmers as per the directions issued by the respondents from time to time under the

¶8

¶9

scheme of SMAM groups and individuals, for which, the Government has to pay the amount. But, the respondent authorities withheld the subsidy amount of Rs.4,98,48,500/-, which the petitioner’s firm is entitled to. The respondents did not initiate any action to pay the same to the petitioner, which is illegal and arbitrary. Hence the writ petition came to be filed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though respondents admitted that the petitioner’s firm is entitled for payment of the aforesaid sum of money, no payment is being made and such non-payment of money is clearly arbitrary and highhanded and thereby requires interference by this court. He further submits that having approved the bills with CFMS token numbers, non-payment of bill amount is arbitrary and illegal.

¶11

This court, in various orders, including the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court, dated 05.10.2021 in W.P.No.10038 of 2021 and batch had taken the view that such non-payment of dues is arbitrary and that such dues needs to be cleared by the respondents at the earliest.

¶12

The learned Government Pleader submits that the respondents- authorities are verifying the claims of the petitioner and would be in a position to make payments only after such verification is being completed.

¶13

¶14

In view of the aforesaid directions of this court in various cases and after hearing both sides, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to complete the verification process within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter to pay the amounts due to the petitioner depending upon the outcome of the verification within a period of six (6) weeks. It would also be open to the petitioner to agitate their claim for interest, if any payable by the respondents in an appropriate forum. No costs.

¶15

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶17

___________________________ DR.K. MANMADHA RAO, J

Date: 13.12.2022

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶22

WRIT PETITION No.37504 OF 2022

¶23

Date: 13.12.2022

¶24

M. Siva Babu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Siva Babu v. The 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Anandratan Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr.Repudi Bhushana Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

K (T) Anusha Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B.Thirupataiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

R.R.v.Satyanarayanarao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

D.Yerraiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh