Dismissed

B Sreenivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Feb 2024WP/9599/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ directing the respondents to pay withheld dues with 24% annual interest for execution of desilting and check dam works. The court found the principal amount was already paid, closing contempt proceedings, and held that claims for additional interest require separate legal proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to claim differential interest amount by initiating separate legal proceedings.

B Sreenivasulu, Vs The State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

ps'

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

-V

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 9599 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

B Sreenivasulu, S/o. B Eswaraiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ- Contractor, R/o. 2-70, Udumulapadu, Dhone, Kurnool District, Pincode-⁵¹⁸²²²

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Department of Irrigation (Water Resources Department),^Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

¶14

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

¶15

The Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Circle, Kurnool, Kurnool District.

¶16

The Executive Engineer, M.I.Works Division, Kurnool,^{KurnoolDistrict.}

¶17

The Chief Executive Officer, AP CFMS Office, 6th Floor, C-Block, Anjaneya Towers, Ibrahimpatnam, Krishna District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of net balance amount Rs.7,13.389/- vide CFMS number 2019377578 and Rs.6,50,390/- vide CFMS number 2019-481430 even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 1).Desilting of Bogamdani vanka near Udumulapadu (V) Dhone (M) Kurnool District, Vide Agreement No. 1902 /2018-19, dated 12.11.2018 and 2). Construction of Check Dam across Ura vanka near Udumulapadu (V), Dhone (M), Kurnool District, Vide Agreement No.2186/2018-19, dated 05.01.2019 is questioned as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amounts of Rs.7,13,389/- vide CFMS number 2019-377578 and Rs.6.50.390/vide CFMS number 2019-481430 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of abovementioned work forthwith.

¶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 petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider for payment^of amount^of Rs.7,13.389/- vide CFMS number 2019-377578 and Rs.6,50.390/vide CFMS number 2019-481430 with interest @24% per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. 1).Desilting of Bogamdani vanka near Udumulapadu (V) Dhone (M) Kurnool District, Vide Agreement No.1902 /2018-19, dated 12.11.2018 and 2). Construction of Check Dam across Ura vanka near Udumulapadu (V),

¶22

Dhone (M), Kurnool District, Vide Agreement No.2186/2018-19, dated 05.01.2019, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ^Petition.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner{s): SRI. BATHALA RAMESH

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents 1, 3 & 4 : GP FOR IRRIGATION^COMM AREA DEV

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents 2 & 5 : GP FOR FINANCE^&PLANNING

¶26

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

WRIT PETITON No.9599 of 2022

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner^submits that 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.3861 of 2022 were also closed.

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

In view of the facts and circumstances and for the reasons stated above, the present Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous, the petitioner to claim differential granting liberty to interest amount, if any, by way of amount/withheld amount or initiation of fresh/separate legal proceedings in accordance^withlaw.

¶38

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending^shall

¶39

stand closed.

¶40

//TRUE COPY//

¶41

SDI- K. KASIRAO ACHARI assistant registrar (J>^ SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

OneCCto SRI BATHALA RAMESH Advocate [QPUC] IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV, High Court of

¶44

TwoCCsto GPfor Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]

¶45

for FINANCE & PLANNING, High Court of Andhra

¶46

1. Two CCs to GP Pradesh. [OUT]

¶47

Three CD Copies

Madhu

HIGH COURT

DATED: 16/02/2024

ORDER

‘JCv
is D 8 JUL 2024 m
Seaiofs ■<y[

¶53

WP.No.9599 of 2022

¶54

DISMISSING THE WP AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS

B Sreenivasulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Sreenivasulu, 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

Ch Anka Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Janardhana, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

U Ramanjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Ark Constructions Vs the State of Ap

Ayacut Dar Committee Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The President, Wua Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh