Disposed

Gadhi Tata Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Oct 2023WP/16874/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner sought a directive for the payment of Rs. 12.00 lakks for completed CC road laying work. The respondent Gram Panchayat admitted the work but refused payment due to fund constraints. The Court directed the Gram Panchayat to pay the amount in three instalments within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Gram Panchayat to pay the amount of Rs. 12,00,000 in three instalments within six weeks.

Gadhi Tata Rao Vs the State of Andhra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

Ss.
Q? I
O I
LO

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 16874 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Gadhi Tata Rao, S/o Abbulu, aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, R/o. S Pydipala (V), Rowthulapudi (M), East Godavari District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

I. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Ministry of Panchayati Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati.

¶13

2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Tadepalli. Guntur District.

¶14

The District Collector. East Godavari District, Kakinada. (Presently Kakinada District).

¶15

The Executive Engineer, PR! Division, Kakinada. East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶16

5. The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada (Presently Kakinada District).

¶17

6. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Rowthulapudi (M), East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶18

The Mandal Engineering Officer, Rowthulapudi (M), East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶19

8. The Mulagapudi Grama Panchayat, Rep. by its Secretary, Mulagapudi (V). East Godavari District. (Presently Kakinada District),

¶20

9. Sri Tamarala Satyanarayana, Presently he was Sarpanch of Mulagapudi Grama Panchayat, Rowthulapudi (Ni). East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶21

The Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department. Central Secretariat Buildings, New Delhi, India.

¶22

II. The State of Andhra Pradesh, its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein, not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs. 12.00.000/- with interest to the petitioner till today even though total works were completed as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and

¶25

consequentially direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest to the petitioner forthwith under the grant of 14*^ finance commission.

¶26

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶27

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amount worth of Rs,12,00,000/- with interest to the petitioner forthwith under the grant of 14“* finance commission, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5: ASST.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 9: SRI N.SRIHARl, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.10: SRI N.HARINATH, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent No.11: ASST.GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING

¶32

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶33

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶34

WRIT PETITION NO.16874 of 2023

¶35

ORDER;

¶36

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶37

"....toissuea Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the natureof Writ of Mandamus to declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and pay the total bill amounts worth of Rs.12,00,000/with interest to the petitioner till today even though total works were completed as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amount worth of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest to the petitioner forthwith under the grant of 14'^ finance commission, and to pass "

¶38

The short grievance of the petitioner herein is that, the respondents are not releasing the legally entitled amount of Rs.12,00,000/- to the petitioner, even though the total work was completed by the petitioner.

¶39

Heard Sri Sri Bokka Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for Respondent Nos.l to 5, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing for Respondent No.ll, Sri N.Harinath, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for Respondent No. 10 and Sri N.Sri Hari, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat appearing for Respondent Nos.6 to & 9.

¶40

¶41

4, Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contented that, the petitioner has executed the work of laying CC Roads at Mulagapudi Village, in the jurisdiction of the 8* respondent. In spite of completion of the work, the Authoritii res have failed to pay the legally entitled amount to the petitioner. As such, the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶42

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the 5*^ respondent-District Panchayat Officer himself issued memo dated 09.09.2022, directing the concerned Gram Panchayat to clear the bills of the petitioner and another on priority basis, from the funds of 15* Finance Commission, by duly taking into consideration G.O.Ms.No.680, dated 02.11.2020 and has as per the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat to the said effect. The said proceedings are placed on record and drawn the attention of this Court to the same. In spite of the same, the Gram Panchayat has not released the amount on priority basis, as such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard.

¶43

On the other hand, Sri N.Sri Hari, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, on instructions submitted that, the petitioner has executed the work but, there is no work order in his name. However, on verification of the m-book, it is found that the petitioner is eligible for payment, for the total work executed under the 14* Finance Commission. As, the total amount of Rs.34,09,585/was deducted by the State

¶44

¶45

Government under reference No.2020-13102239 from the 14’*' Finance Commission Funds, the Gram Panchayat could not pay the petitioner from the said funds. However, the Gram Panchayat has an intention to pay the amount to the petitioner from the 15^. Finance Commission Funds, but the Sarpanch has raised an objection and refused to pay the amount to the petitioner as the 15^ Finance Commission funds are sanctioned for other work and the Gram Panchayat has passed Resolution No.l, dated 16.09.2022, to that effect. As such, prayed to pass appropriate orders in this regard.

¶46

He further submitted that,, the Gram Panchayat is ready and willing to pay the legally entitled amount to the petitioner out of the 15^ Finance Commission funds, if the Government, District Collector and District Panchayat Officer issue specific directions.

¶47

Peruse the record.

¶48

The version of the respondents is that, though, there is no work order in the name of the petitioner, they are admitting that the petitioner has completed the contract of laying CC Road. There Is no dispute to the said effect and the only ground that Is raised by the Sarpanch is that the Gram Panchayat Is ready and willing to pay from the 15^ Finance Commission Funds, In instalments, if Government, District Collector and District Panchayat Officer issue specific directions. To sum up the respondent-Authorlties are admitting that the petitioner has executed the

¶49

¶50

work of laying CC Road and requesting this Court to allow to pay the said

¶51

amount in instalments.

¶52

Taking the submissions of both the learned counsel into consideration and in view of the financiarcapacity of the Gram Panchayat, this Court is inclined to consider the request of the respondents by passing the following order:

¶53

The respondent-Gram Panchayat is directed to pay the legally entitled amount to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in three (03) instalments i.e.,

¶54

one instalment per two (02) weeks".

¶55

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶56

There shall be no orders as to costs.

¶57

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶58

Sd/- S.SRINIVASA PRASAD

¶59

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶60

To,

¶61

SECTtONOFFICER

¶62

Principal Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj & Rural Development

¶63

o Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. The Commissioner of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department Andhra Pradesh, Tadepalli, Guntur District.

¶64

1. Collector, East Godavari District, Kakinada. (Presently Kakinada

¶65

LJioirici).

¶66

4. Kakinada, East Godavari District

¶67

(Presently Kakinada District).

¶68

The District Panchayat Officer, East Godavari District, Kakinada (Presently Kakinada District).

¶69

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Rowthulapudi (M), East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District),

¶70

The Mandal Engineering Officer, Rowthulapudi (M), East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶71

The Secretary, Mulagapudi Grama Panchayat, Mulagapudi (V), East Godavari District. (Presently Kakinada District).

¶72

Sri Tamarala Satyanarayana, Presently he was Sarpanch of Mulagapudi Grama Panchayat, Rowthulapudi (Ni), East Godavari District (Presently Kakinada District).

¶73

The Principal Secretary, Union of India, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Central Secretariat Buildings. New Delhi, India.

¶74

The Principal Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati

¶75

One CC to Sri, Bokka Satyanarayana, Advocate [OPUC]

¶76

Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶77

Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, [OUT] 15. One CC to Sri N. Harinath, Deputy Solicitor General of India. [OPUC] 16. One CC to Sri N. Sri Hari, SC for Gram Panchayat. [OPUC] 17. Three CD Copies. gi

HIGH COURT

DATED:04/10/2023

ORDER

WP.No.16874 of 2023

of
s 21NUV 2023
. Current Section

¶84

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

Gadhi Tata Rao v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gadhi Tata Rao 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

D Ram Prasad Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Vaddepalli Narasimha Rao Vs the State of Ap

Mandli Pedda Mallu Swamy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Tirukoti Murali Krishna Vs the Government of India

Goripati Ashok Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Nandeti Ravindra Babu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh