Dismissed

Balireddy Surendra Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Feb 2024WP/1938/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought mandamus for payment of dues under a Neeru-Chettu check dam works contract. The court was told the principal amount had been paid and contempt proceedings closed. Dismissing the writ as infructuous, it left the petitioner free to claim interest or withheld amounts by fresh legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

None; liberty granted to file fresh proceedings for interest or withheld amounts.

Balireddy Surendra Reddy Vs The… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADpA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 1938 OF 2022

¶7

Between:

¶8

Balireddy Surendra Reddy, S/o. Sidda Reddy, Aged. 57 Years, Occ. Janmabhoomi Mavvooru Committee Member, R/o. Bhakarapeta Village Chinnagottigallu Mandal, Chittoor District. ...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶12

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretaryto Government, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ,

¶13

The Chief Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Vijayawada,^Krishna District.

¶14

The District Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor,

¶15

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water^Resources Department, Chittoor, Chittoor District.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Water^Resources Department, Tirupathi, Chittoor District.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

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^{particularlyone} in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondentsⁱⁿ

¶19

,4,-

¶20

non-payment of amounts due for the last three years^{evenafterfinalizing} the bills, payable to the petitioner after the successful^{completionofthe} execution of works i.e., “Construction of Checkdam across Kappaleru beside M.Reddeppa lands near Kamalayyagaripalli Village and GP in Y.V.Palem Mandal of Chittoor District” under “Neeru-Chettu” programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts due^{tothepetitionerin} respect of execution of said work forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pay the amounts^payable to the petitioner for the work i.e., "Construction of Checkdam^{acrossKappaleru} beside M.Reddeppa lands near Kamalayyagaripalli Village and GP in Y.V.Palem Mandal of Chittoor District" executed by him under "NeeruChettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of^{themainwritpetition.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FINANCE AND^PLANNING Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: GP FOR IRRIGATION^&CAD The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 1938 OF 2022

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

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

¶27

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, on oral instructions^{submittedthat} respondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitioner.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner^submitsthat the respondents paid the principal amount, but not paid the^interest as claimed by the petitioner and the contempt proceedings initiated in C.C.No.2879 of 2022 was also closed.

¶29

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel^forthe petitioner and learned Government Pleader that the^{principalamount} was already paid as claimed by the petitioner, contempt^proceedings were closed and also the contention of the learned^{GovernmentPleader} that the further claim of interest for delayed payment can^beagitatedby

¶30

¶31

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 dismissed as infructuous, granting liberty to the petitioner to claim differential amount/withheld^amount or interest amount, if any, by way of initiation of fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance with law. No costs.

¶33

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^shallstand

¶34

closed.

¶35

SD/- V. DIWAKAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// fsr SECTION OFFICER

¶36

¶37

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

¶38

Two CC’s to GP for Finance and Planning, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶39

Two CCs to GP for Irrigation and CAD, High Court of A.P. at Amaravati[OUT]

¶40

Three CD Copies.

ssb

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.1938 of 2022

Of
8^
OVi
m
s 0 8 AUG 202't Co.
. Current Section
^esPATcy^32$^

¶47

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Balireddy Surendra Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balireddy Surendra 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Purushottam Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kota Subba Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Bhaskar Rao Vs the State of Ap

Singamsetty.Venkateswararao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gudupala Narasimha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M Geethanjali Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh