Dismissed

K Purushottam Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2024WP/1092/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for payment of irrigation work dues under Neeru-Chettu programme as infructuous, noting the Government Pleader confirmed the principal amount was paid, though interest remained claimed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to claim differential/withheld amount or interest by filing fresh/separate legal proceedings. No costs.

K Purushottam Reddy Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ^

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDa'^

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1092 OF 2022 "

¶7

Between:

¶8

K. Purushottam Reddy, S/o. Sri Rami Reddy, Aged 39 Years, Occ; Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee Member R/o. Boddeladinne Village, Panjamala Mandal, Kurnool District,

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government Department of Finance and Planning, Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary^to

¶13

velagapudi

¶14

Krishna

¶15

^ Dislrict^'^^ Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department,^Vijayawada

¶16

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶17

'‘'•''gation Circle, Water Resgurces

¶18

Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶19

Division, Water Resources

¶20

Department, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Artfcle 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 declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of amounts due for the last three years even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner after the Successful - J completion of the

¶23

execution of different irrigation works in Gulladurthi Village of Koilakuntia Mandal in Kurnool District under Neeru-Chettu programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents^{toconsiderthe} payment of amounts due to the petitioner in respect^ofexecution of said work. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the amounts payable to the petitioner for different irrigation works in Gulladurthi Village of Koilakuntia Mandal in Kurnool District executed by him under “Neeru Chettu” programme immediately, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 : GP FOR IRRIGATION^AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

4 I

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO. 1092 OF 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned^Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶33

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, on oral instructions^submitted that

¶34

re spondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitioner.

¶35

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner^submitsthat the respondents paid the principal amount, but not^{paidtheinterestas} claimed by the petitioner and the contempt proceedings initiated i _:n C.C.No.3222 of 2022 was also closed.

¶36

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, contempt closed and also the contention of the learned proceedings were Government Pleader that the further claim of interest for delayed

¶37

¶38

payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶39

In view of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim differential amount/withheld^amountor interest amount, if any, by way of initiation of fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.

¶40

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^shallstand closed.

¶41

Sd/- K J RAJA BABU //TRUE COPY// assistANT^G'STRAR SE ^OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

One CC to M/s. Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC]

¶44

¶45

1. Two CCs to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court^ofAndhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶46

Two CCs to GP for Irrigation and Command Area Development,^High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶47

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1092 of 2022

19 DEC 2024 m
O
. Current Section

¶54

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

K Purushottam Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Purushottam Reddy 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Saragada Narasayya Reddy Vs Dingu(Saragada) kanaka Mahalakshmi

Eleswaram Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Ramaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Bhaskar Rao Vs the State of Ap