Disposed

M/s. Iacg Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Jun 2023WP/28242/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a writ petition under Article 226 concerning unpaid training fees directs the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities with a detailed representation. The authorities were directed to dispose of the matter within eight weeks after an opportunity of hearing. The writ petition was disposed of without deciding the merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to dispose of petitioner's representation within eight weeks after hearing.

M/s. Iacg Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.28242 OF 2022

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The present Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, 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 for withholding the admitted amount of Rs.1,41,04,512/- ( One Crore Forty one lakhs Four thousand Five hundred and Twelve Rupees Only) is illegal, arbitrary and Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution of India and for consequently direct the respondents to pay Rs.1,41,04,512/- (One Crore Forty one lakhs Four thousand Five hundred and Twelve Rupees Only) with interest and to pass such other order or orders…..”

¶6

Heard Sri Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavit contended that, the petitioner firm entered into an agreement dated 25.02.2016 with respondent No.3 for providing training programmes with various specializations i.e., 3D Animation, 3D Dynamics, 3D Modeling, VFX BG Prep, VFX Paint and Comp.etc and

¶8

¶9

accordingly, conducted training programmes to the candidates selected by respondent No.3. But respondent Nos.1 to 3 failed to process the bills raised by the petitioner’s firm for the year 2019-20. He further contended that in similar circumstances, works done by the individuals under the same scheme, filed Writ Petitions vide W.P.Nos.31168 of 2021, 28365 of 2021, 12968 of 2022 and 11936 of 2022 and the same were ordered with a direction to pay the balance amounts within the stipulated time.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri N.Srihari, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that there are contradictions in the counter affidavit and the additional counter affidavit of respondent No.3 and there is a dispute about payment of money as claimed by the petitioner. He further submitted that if the petitioner has to approach concerned authority and claim their rights by placing all the relevant documents, this Court cannot adjudicate under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶11

In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to approach respondent Nos.1 to 3 and claim their rights.

¶12

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

In view of the submissions made by both the learned

¶15

counsel, instead of keeping this Writ Petition pending, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Writ petition with the following direction:

¶16

a) The petitioner is at liberty to approach respondent Nos.1 to 3 with a detailed representation by placing all the material in support of its claim.

¶17

b) On receipt of such representation, the respondent authorities are directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter and communicate the same to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, the Writ petition is disposed of. There shall

¶19

be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

¶21

22.06.2023

¶22

¶23

__________________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶24

¶25

173

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.28242 OF 2022

¶28

22.06.2023

¶29

M/s. Iacg Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Iacg Multimedia Pvt. Ltd. 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

Sri Bhaskara Padma Exims Vs Union of India

M/S. Sr Edifice Private Limited Vs the Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure Development Corporation

Crystal Nova Foods Private Limited Vs Union of India

M/S. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Vs Union of India

M Shareef Vs the State of Ap

Yeripilli Devudu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh