Dismissed

V.Ramaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Feb 2024WP/9581/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP No. 9581 of 2022, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh entertained a writ petition seeking declaration that Respondents failed to pay Rs.6.72 lakhs for irrigation work and dismissal of contempt proceedings. The Court dismissed the petition as infructuous after Government Pleader confirmed principal payment.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; liberty granted to claim interest via separate proceedings; No costs.

V.Ramaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

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

¶2

MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9581 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

H age about 55 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. Chittoor^Dist^rc'T^^^'*^^ Village, Yadamarri Mandal,

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Irriqation

¶11

and CAD, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.

¶12

The Engineer in Chief, Irrigation and CAD, D.No.48-10-9/1 NH Feeder Road, Currency Nagar, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

¶13

The District Collector, Chittoor District at Chittoor.

¶14

, Chittoor

¶15

Dislr^r^^**'^^ Engineer, Irrigation and CAD, Chittoor^Division

¶16

Chfttoo/ 3"'^ Projects), Chittoor District,

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied therewith the High Court may be pieased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particuiariy one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus deciaring the action of the respondents in non-compiiance of payment of Rs.6.72,013/under M.Book N0.678-B, inciuding quaiity controi hoiding amounts, for the works done by the petitioner for repairs to check dam across local vagu near Budithireddypalli Village in Yadamarri Mandal, Chittoor District, as illegal. arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Rules and

¶19

1 / Regulations there under and consequently direct the respondents to pay ( .. ^ an arnpunt of Rs.6,72,013/under M.Book No.678-B, including quality /; holding amounts, and pass ■u ■i

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to release the funds through a proper channel for payment of Rs.6,72,013/- under M.Book No.678B, including quality control holding amounts, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI K. V. L. NARASIMHA RAO

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : GP FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION N0.9581 OF 2022 ORDER:

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

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.5205 of 2022 was also closed.

¶30

(

¶31

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel^forthe petitioner and learned Government Pleader that that the principal amount 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

¶32

¶33

payment can be agitated by 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

closed.

To,

//TRUE COPY//

SD/- P.U.V.BHASKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I^CTIONI OFFICER

¶40

One CC to Sri K. V. L. Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶41

Two CCs to GP for Irrigation & Command Area Development, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶42

Two CCs to GP for Finance & Planning, High Court^{of AndhraPradesh.} [OUT]

¶43

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/02/2024

ORDER

WP.No.9581 of 2022

wmcSrco™!'"'’- “ 'n™ctuous

V.Ramaiah v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Ramaiah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Saragada Narasayya Reddy Vs Dingu(Saragada) kanaka Mahalakshmi

Eleswaram Sujatha, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

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