Dismissed

Ayacut Dar Committee, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Feb 2024WP/8408/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the High Court's withholding of payment for an Ayacut road repair project. The court held the petition infructuous as the principal and interest amounts were already paid and closed, allowing fresh proceedings for any differential amount.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to initiate fresh legal proceedings to claim differential amount or interest, if any.

Ayacut Dar Committee, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ^ a
(Special Original Jurisdiction) It
o ‘4
FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY X
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR ♦ 1^: £
PRESENT ilQ.i

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.8408 of 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ayacut Dar Committee, Pamulapadu, Kurnool District, Represented by its President, B. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Busi Reddy, aged 53 years, R/o. H. No. 1-68, Bhanumukkala Village, Pamulapadu Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶8

...Petitioner

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Secretary, Irrigation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Guntur^District.

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi,^{GunturDistrict.}

¶12

The Engineer-In-Chief, Irrigation and CAD Department, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

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

¶14

The Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, KC Canal Division, Nandyal, Kurnool District.

¶15

The Deputy Executive Engineer, KC Canal Sub Division,^Kurnool 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,^{theHighCourtmay} pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ^{ofMandamusdeclaring} the action of the respondents in withholding the payment^{ofamountpayable} to the petitioner in relation to the repairs and strengthening^{theAyacutroad} from S. Shivalingam fields to Balayya fields near Chelimila^Villageunder Pamulapadu Village of KC Canal, under the jurisdiction^{ofpetitionerherein} 1660/2018-19 dated 05.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, in vide Agreement No violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct^the amount of Rs. 7,68,248/- due to the petitioner in respondents to pay an respect of execution of afore mentioned works forthwith.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,^{theHighCourtmaybe} pleased to direct the respondents to take steps for^{payingtheamountofRs.} 7,68,248/- due to the petitioner in respect of the^{workexecutedbyhimunder} Neeru Chettu Programme, pending disposal of the Writ^Petition.

¶20

: Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao Counsel for the Petitioner : GP for Irrigation Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6 : GP for Finance Counsel for the Respondent No.2

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

¶24

.TTTSTICE VFNKATESWA^T-TT NIMMAGADDA THE HON’BLE SRI

¶25

WT?TT PETITON No.8408 of 2022

¶26

ORDER;

¶27

and learned 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶28

for hearing, learned Government 2. When the matter is taken up oral instructions submitted Pleader for Finance and Planning, on total due amount claimed by that respondent authorities paid the the petitioner.

¶29

submits 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner but not paid the that the respondents paid the principal amount and the contempt proceedings interest as claimed by the petitioner also closed. initiated in C.C.No.2291 of 2022 were

¶30

made by the learned counsel for the 4. In view of the submissions Pleader that the principal and learned Government petitioner amount was already paid as claimed by the petitioner contempt of the learned proceedings were closed and also the contention of interest for delayed Pleader that the further claim Government

¶31

¶32

payment can be agitated by way of initiation of separate/fresh legal proceedings is also valid and sustainable.

¶33

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.

¶34

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶35

//TRUE COPY//

¶36

SD/- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶37

SECTION OFFICER

¶38

¶39

One CC to Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao Advocate [OPUC] High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶40

Two CCS to GP for Irrigation, Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶41

Two CCS to GP for Finance, High

¶42

Three CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.8408 of 2022

gP
12 ?0?^ I
. Current Section

¶50

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

¶51

HIGH COURT

¶52

Ayacut Dar Committee, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayacut Dar Committee, 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

Satya Sai Construction Vs the State of Ap

Nadimpalli Venkatraju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Karumuru Venkata Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

N Anjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Garapati Raja Rao Vs the State of Ap

Akasam Srinivas Vs the State of Ap