Dismissed

Kunduru Rama Chandra Reddy, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Feb 2024WP/330/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking payment of dues for irrigation works under the Neeru-Chettu programme. Respondents paid principal; petitioner sought interest for delay. Court held interest claim could be agitated in fresh proceedings and dismissed the petition as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to claim differential/withheld amount or interest through fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance with law.

Kunduru Rama Chandra Reddy, Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY / TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADD^

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 330 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Kunduru Rama Chandra Reddy, S/o. Venkata Swamy Reddy, Aged 42 Years, Occ. Janmabhoomi Mavoori Committee member, R/o. Banaganapalli Village, Banaganapalli Mandal, Kurnool^District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The District Collector, Kurnool District at Kurnool,

¶14

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Water Resources Department, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, M.I.Works Division, Water Resources Department, Nandyal, Kurnool 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 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 completion of the

¶18

execution of different irrigation works in near Nandavaram, Fathenagaram, • ;’Cherlokotturu and Pandlapuram villages of Banaganapalli Mandal in Kurnool District under “Neeru-Chettu” programme duly approved by the respondents, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable^{andunconstitutional} and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amounts due to the petitioner in respect of execution^{ofsaidworkforthwith} and to pass 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 different irrigation works in near Nandavarain, Fathenagaram, Cherlokotturu and Pandlapuram villages of Banaganapalli Mandal in Kurnool District executed by his under "Neeru-Chettu" programme immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1; GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6: GP FOR^IRRIGATION

¶22

¶23

Counsel for the RespondentNo.4: GP FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2022

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

V 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ^ ' ( the respondents paid the principal amount, but not^{paidtheinterest} as claimed by the petitioner and the contempt proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1427 of 2022 was also closed.

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶34

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.

¶35

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^shallstand

¶36

closed.

¶37

¶38

SD/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFl ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1, One CC to Sri Nimmagadda Revathi, Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2. Two CCS to GP for Finance Planning [OUT] High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 3. Two CCS to GP for Revenue High Court Of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 4. Two CCS to GP for Irrigation, 5. Three CD copies JSS

¶43

¶44

¶45

HIGH COURT DATED: 05/02/2024

¶46

ORDER

¶47

WP.No.330 of 2022

¶48

DISMISSING THE W.P. AS INFRUCTUOUS

¶49

WITHOUT COSTS

¶50

ANO^
c>
OVj
(15 3 I AUG m m||
0?//

Kunduru Rama Chandra Reddy, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunduru Rama Chandra 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

Kaipa Eswar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Jakkapogula Pullaiah Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Parri Maheswari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Water User Association (W.U.a.) Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Manikonda Ramakrishna, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Rapuru Sundara Rami Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh