Allowed

Sanapala Koteswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2024WP/22923/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition declaring the non-release of bill amount for construction of Raithu Bharosa Kendram illegal and seeking payment. After hearing, the court confined the relief to the amount contested by respondents (Rs.1,73,342/-) and directed payment within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to arrange to pay Rs.1,73,342/- to the petitioner expeditiously, within four weeks from receipt of the copy of the order.

Sanapala Koteswara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.22923 of 2023

¶4

Between:Sanapala Koteswara Rao

¶5

…. Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad & Others. …. Respondents

¶8

Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Srinivas Ambati Counsel for the Respondents : Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Government Pleader for Finance & Planning Government Pleader for Agriculture

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the bill amount of Rs.6,42,054/- for execution of works i.e., construction of Raithu Bharosa Kendram in the land covered

¶11

by Survey No.107-1 situated in Kotturu Syrigam Gram Panchayat of Gara Mandal in Srikakulam District as illegal, arbitrary etc., and for a consequential direction to pay the said amount to the petitioner and to pass such other orders.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj, who made his submissions with reference to the averments made in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.6.

¶13

¶14

At the time of considering the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition is filed claiming an amount of Rs.6,42,054/-. However, in the light of the counter averments, more particularly, Para No.6 he is confining the relief to the amount mentioned by the respondents i.e., Rs.1,73,342/-.

¶15

In the light of the said submission, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to arrange to pay an amount of Rs.1,73,342/- to the petitioner, in respect of the works-in-question,

¶16

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.

¶17

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date: 02.01.2024 BLV

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.22923 of 2023

¶21

Date: 02.01.2024

¶22

BLV

Sanapala Koteswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanapala Koteswara Rao 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Minerals Tadipatri Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

M/s LakshmiNarasimha Stone Crusher, Vs Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

Qian Cao Vs Union of India

P Atchamma Vs the State of Ap

Kbc Infrastructures Private Limited Vs the State of Ap

Boddu Ramachandra Reddy Vs Dagada Venkateswara Reddy