Writ petition sought release of bill amounts for works under the Neeru Chettu programme agreements. The State paid the principal amount; contempt proceedings were closed. The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, leaving the petitioner free to pursue any interest claim by fresh proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
•A-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
(Special Original Jurisdiction) i MONDAY. THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY I
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
WRIT PETITION NO: 327 OF 2022 ^
Between:
Manikonda Ramakrishna, S/o. Venkatanarayana, Aged;36 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.1-91, Dundiralapadu Village, Gampalagudem Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner
AND
N
...Respondents
<br><br><br><br>I ^ <br>
y Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstancesi-' 1 stated in the affidavit filed therewith,theHighCourtmaybe ftdpi^d to issue a writ, order or direction more particularlyoneinthenatureof Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents innotreleasing the bill amounts admittedly due to the petitioner despitesuccessfulcompletionof work in terms of the Agreement Number.727 NC/2018-2019dated01.08.2018 and Agreement No.723 NC/2018-2019 dated 01.08.2018withthetotalamount spent for the works of Rs.7,63,053-/, under the “Neeru Chettu” program approved for payment and entered in the CFMS (Comprehensive Financial Management System), even after completion of defect liability period and inspite of repeated requests, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unjust enrichment, violative of Articles 14, 19, 21 and 300-AoftheConstitution of India, apart from being contrary to .the orders ofthisHon'bleCourtissuedfrom time to time and consequently direct the Respondentstoforthwithpaythe approved amounts payable to the. petitioner in respectoftheworksexecuted by the petitioner under the aforesaid agreements, alongwithinterestaccrued on the said amounts from the due date till the date of payment and pass
‘C -5
S' y
f: i-' 1
i
.1
I
ftdpi^d
.j-'
' bill
-lA NO: 1 OF 2022
' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleasedto direct the Respondents to forthwith pay the final billamountspayabletothe Petitioner in relation to the works executed by him under "Neeru-Chettu n programme vide Agreement Ndmber.727 NC/2018-2019 dated01.08.2018and Agreement No.723 NC/2018-:|p4>9 dated 01.08.2018 with the total amount spent for the works of Rs.7,63,053-/, pending disposalofthemainWritPetition \ and pass V
/
/
•y
/
'/
y
//
sf-
"C Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. T VENU GOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,5,6,7&8: GP FOR IRRIGATIONCOMM AREA DEV
Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&9: GP FOR FINANCE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: GP FOR REVENUE
The Court made the following order:
r
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION N0.327 OF 2022
ORDER;
- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for the respondents.
- When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning, on oral instructionssubmittedthat respondent authorities paid the total due amount claimed by the petitioner.
- On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitionersubmitsthat the respondents paid the principal amount, but notpaidtheinterestas claimed by the petitioner and the contempt proceedings initiated i __n C.C.No.1668 of 2022 was also closed.
2
way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingshallstand closed.;;,,
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- B. PRASADA RAO assistANTjREGlST^AR SE Bnofficer
To,
HIGH COURT DATED: 05/02/2024
ORDER
WP.No.327 of 2022
DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS
WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives after the State paid the principal bill amounts due under the works agreements.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Manikonda Ramakrishna
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government, Irrigation Department
The Principal Secretary to Government, Finance Department
The Director of Works and Accounts
The District Collector, Krishna District
The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Special Division, Vijayawada
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
