Disposed¶33

Sudhakara Infratech Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Jul 2025WP/15762/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC WP 15762/2025; Sudhakara Infratech Pvt Ltd v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Kiranmayee Mandava; 08.07.2025; mines and geology; seigniorage fee; DMF; MERIT; consideration amount; G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 15.03.2024; representation dated 19.05.2025 disposed 02.07.2025; adjustment of Rs.33,54,67,590/-; monthly equated sums; Article 226; Article 14; writ of Mandamus; disposed with liberty to challenge proceedings; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the proceedings passed on its representation dated 19.05.2025; no order as to costs. ¶33

Sudhakara Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3458]

¶2

APHC010313252025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15762/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

SUDHAKARA INFRATECH PVT LTD, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND PROJECT COORDINATOR SRI. PULAVARTHY REDDIAH GUPTA, S/O. VENKATA RAMANA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, FLAT.NO.304, METRO RESIDENCY, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, SOMAJIGUDA, HYDERABAD.TG.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINES AND GEOLOGY (INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, ANJANEYA TOWER, PLOT NOS.5 AND 6, IBRAHIMPATNAM, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DISTRICT MINES AND GEOLOGY OFFICER, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not implementing the policy decision of the 1st Respondent

¶17

¶18

vide G.O.Ms.No.37, Industries and Commerce (M.lll) Department dated 15.03.2024 for realization of Seigniorage Fee, Consideration Amount, DMF and MERIT for both ongoing and New works Under departments of Government of Andhra Pradesh, Sanctioned by the Government, Sanctioned under EAP (ADB etc). National Highway Works, Sanctioned by the Government of India in favor of the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and ultra vires the policy guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.37 Industries and Commerce (M.lll) Department dated 15.03.2024 and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.P V A PADMANABHAM

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

ORDER :-

¶27

Heard Sri P.V.A.Padmanabham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology.

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents have not considered the representation made by the petitioner on 19.05.2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner seeking adjustment of Rs.33,54,67,590/-, towards the monthly equated sums has approached the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents through a representation dated 19.05.2025 seeking the said adjustment. The representation was received by

¶29

¶30

the respondents on 26.05.2025. However, the same has not been disposed of. Hence the writ petition.

¶31

When the matter is taken up today for admission, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the representation of the petitioner dated 19.05.2025, was disposed of on 02.07.2025, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner.

¶32

Therefore, the cause raised in the writ petition would not survive. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the liberty may be granted to challenge the proceedings on the representation of the petitioner.

¶33

The writ petition is disposed of as no further orders are required to be passed since the representation of the petitioner has already been disposed of. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the proceedings that have been passed on the representation.

¶34