Dismissed

Bhargav Agencies v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Mar 2024WP/1393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partnership firm filed writ petition for delayed payment of Rs. 5,91,450/- for agricultural machinery. Court directed release of admitted amount of Rs. 4,01,500/- within four months due to insufficient funds.

What did the court decide?

Direct the respondents to clear the admitted amount of Rs. 4,01,500/- to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of this order.

Bhargav Agencies Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1393 OF 2024

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Bhargav Agencies, R/o H. No. 18-1-31B, First Line, Mango Market Opposite Anjaneya Swami Temple Street, Kedareswarapeta, Vijayawada’ Andhra Pradesh - 520003 Rep. by its Managing Director, Kuralla Lokanadh c’ 7 ° Lokanadh Gupta, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Business,^H.No. 18-2-5, Zero Line, Kedareswarapeta, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶8

...Petitioner AND

¶9

The State of AP, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶10

^^/^f^'ssioner and Director of Agriculture, Government^ofAndhra

¶11

Pradesh Agricultural Department, Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu Road Guntur District.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶13

The Joint Director, Agriculture. Krishna District (Judicial) Machilipatnam.

¶14

The Joint Director, Agriculture, West Godavari (Judicial), Eluru District.

¶15

The Joint Director (Judicial), Agriculture, Ananthapuram^District.

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 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

¶18

even though admitted amount for Rs. 5,91,450/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety one thousand four hundred and fifty Only) is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Rules 86 Regulations and consequently, direct the respondents^{topaytheadmitted} ' % amounts of Rs. 5,91,450/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety^{onethousandfour} hundred, and fifty Only) with cumulative interest lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 1 to 6 respondents to release^{theadmittedamountfor} 5,91,450 ( Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety One Thousand four hundred and^fifty only ) through a proper channel into the above writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents No.1, 2 and 4 to 6: GP^{FORAGRICULTURE} (AP)

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No. 3: GP FOR FINANCE (AP)

¶22

The Court made the following: Order

¶23

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶25

WRIT PETITION No. 1393 of 2024

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article²²⁶

¶28

of the Constitution of India seeking the following^relief:-

¶29

"... 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 for Rs.5,91,450/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety one thousand four hundred and fifty Only) is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice contrary to the Rules & Regulations and consequently direct the respondents to pay the admitted amounts of Rs.5,91,450/ (Rupees Five Lakhs Ninety one thousand four hundred and fifty Only) with cumilative interest....”

¶30

Brief facts of the case are that the pt respondent introduced NFSM (National Food Security Mission) Scheme^tothe farmers and framed guidelines under the said scheme by co ordinating/identifying and purchasing supply/delivery of the machinery to the farmers for uplifting the agricultural process including increase of productivity and sustainable development. The petitioner is one of the supplier of the machinery recognized by the respondents and the petitioner agreed to supply of machinery like Taiwan Sprayers etc., to the farmers as per the list prepared by the competent authority. As per the^instructions

¶31

¶32

¶33

issued by the respondents, the petitioner firm supplied^thesame from time to time.

¶34

After due verification, the respondents generated the bill payable to the petitioner in the CFMS portal to process^thesame. But the same is pending from 2018-19. In response to the representations submitted by the petitioner, the Commissioner of Agriculture sent reply dated 08.09.2020 stating that^theywill clear the bills within two months after delivery of^{theequipments.} But, inspite of the same, the respondents did not release^thebill amount to the petitioner till date. Hence, the writ^petition.

¶35

Respondent No.2 filed counter and stated that though^the amount of Rs. 5,91,450/-, the petitioner is petitioner claimed an entitled for an amount of Rs.4,01,500/- only. It is^{furtherstated} that due to insufficient funds, the respondents are^unable to generate the bills through CFMS portal for effecting^paymentof Rs.4,01,500/- to the petitioner under NFSM and Sub^Missionon Agricultural Mechanization (SMAM) Schemes as against Rs.5,91,450/- and the respondents are committed to^clearthe dues soon after the release of budget from the S'-d^respondent. The said fact was also admitted by the learned Government Pleader for Finance 85 Planning.

¶36

¶37

In view of the fact that the respondents are ready^toclear an admitted amount of Rs.4,01,500/instead of keeping^thewrit petition pending, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to clear^theadmitted amount of Rs.4,01,500/to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months^fromthe date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶38

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed^of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ

¶40

Petition shall stand closed.

¶41

To,

¶42

//TRUE COPY//

¶43

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Rvv SECTION OFFICER

¶44

The Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Government of Andhra Pradesh

¶45

The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government^ofAndhra Pradesh, Agricultural Department, Old Mirchi Yard, Nallapadu Road, Guntur District.

¶46

The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Government of Andhra Pradesh

¶47

The Joint Director, Agriculture, Krishna District (Judicial), Machilipatnam.

¶48

The Joint Director, Agriculture, West Godavari (Judicial),^{EluruDistrict.} 6. The Joint Director (Judicial), Agriculture, Ananthapuram^District.

¶49

One CC to SRI DASARI S VV S V PRASAD Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

Two CCS to GP FOR AGRICULTURE (AP), High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT]

¶51

Three CD Copies

gsg

HIGH COURT

DATED: 21/03/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1393 of 2024

o
o
JC. 05 CC" 2^’} m
Current S?c::on

¶58

DISPOSING WP WITHOUT COSTS

Bhargav Agencies v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhargav Agencies v. the State of Ap

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

M/s N. Krishna Reddy and Co, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sahaya Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Vs the State of Ap

Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara College of Education Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Anwar Basha, S/o S.Abdul Khader, Vs Sri Venkateswara University

Sumourya College of Education Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sumourya College of Education Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh