Nadmimpalli Chaitanya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC29 Aug 2023WP/17950/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition alleging violation of fundamental rights due to non-release of bills worth approximately 56 lakh. The Government Pleader stated the principal amount was paid. The Court allowed the matter to remain closed but granted liberty to the petitioner to file separate proceedings for claiming interest.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to claim interest via fresh legal proceedings. No costs.

Nadmimpalli Chaitanya Vs the State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN TH^ HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY. THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST R fell TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 17950 OF 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

rSTm P^° abput^38 years R/o D.No.2-233/1, Main

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, The Government of Andra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance department. Secretariat buildings Amaravgti.

¶13

The Government of Andra Pradesh, rep. by its principal secretary Irrigatioin and Water Resources department .Secretariet buildings Amaravati.

¶14

The District Collector, West Godavari district.Eluru

¶15

The Engineer in Chief, Minor/Major Irrigation Department Irrigation Bhavan.Vijayawada, Krishna Dist.

¶16

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle Office, Eluru, West Godavari Dist.

¶17

ThI n e Executitxecuti ve Engineer. Spe ciecial M I Division, K.R. Puram, Water Resources department West Godavari Dist

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Qourt may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring inaction on the part of the respondents here in not releasing the bills amount worth of Rupees 56,69,461/- with interest of Execution and completion of various works as per the agreements No. 72.SE/2018-19 dt 19-9-2018. 73.se/2018-19 dt 19-9-2018, 74.SE/2018-19 dt 19-9-2018, in the area of Buttaigudam and Polavaram Mandals of West Godavari dist under Neeru-Chettu Scheme to the petitioner till today and causing heavy loss with interest even though total works were completed as illegal arbitrary and violative of article 14,16,21 of constitution of In^ia and consequentially to direct the respondents to release and pay the bills worth of Rupees 56,69,461/- with interest to the petitioner fourthwith as per the agreements.

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶21

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 direct the respondents to release and pay the bills worth of Rupees 56,69,461/with interest to the petitioner fourthwith as per the agreements and pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents 2, 4 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & CAD

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE KCiN’BLE SRI JU^TICB VBNKATBSWARLU NIMIMUIGADPA

¶26

PEimow no. 17950 of 2021

¶27

ORDER;

¶28

Heg-rd learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶29

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Plemning, on oral instructions submitted that respondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitipner.

¶30

On the other hand, lesirned counsel for the petitioner submit^ that the respondents paid the principal amount, but not paid the interest as claimed by the petitioner.

¶31

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader that that the principal amount was already paid as claimed by the petitioner and also the contention of the learned Government Pleader that the further claim of interest for (Relayed payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶32

In view of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim the interest amount, if any, by way of initiation of fresh/separate Ipgal proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.

¶33

Consequently, miscelkineous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

Sd/- U.SRIPEVI ASSISTANT R^SKSTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION"^FICER

¶36

Tp, 1. QneCCtoSRI,Ri BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Advocatp [OPUQ] GP FOR HNANCE planning. High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

¶37

1. Two CCs to C? 3. ^'Svo^QCsto GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]10*^ FOR REVENUE, High Court.of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶38

1. Two CCs to or 5. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED;29/08/2023

ORDER

WP.No.17950 of 2021

¶44

I® OCT 2023
^“"enl Section
> -J

¶45

CLOSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS

Nadmimpalli Chaitanya v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadmimpalli Chaitanya 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

Malla Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.S Padmavathi Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,Iandcad,Gutur Dist,and 2

Udarapu Siva Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

U Mani Vs P Babu Rao

V. Subramanyam Vs Sri K.S.Jawahar Reddy, IAS

Gopina Gopala Krishna Vs The Government of Andra Pradesh