Bora Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Bora Ramachandra Reddy Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of Respondent Nos. 5 to 13 in respect of the works awarded and executed and being executed by Respondent No.14 (represented by Respondent No.15) - awarding works under specifications, allowing payments without doing works, allowing excess rates, allowing mines from unauthorized quarries, and allowing paid vouchers not as per actuals, including the water sump at AOB work valued at Rs.50 crores - was illegal, improper, unjustified, arbitrary and capricious, and whether the works granted in favour of Respondent Nos. 14 & 15 should be cancelled. (Raised in the petition prayer; not adjudicated, as the petition was dismissed as abated.)

Ratio / Principle

On the submission of the learned Central Government Counsel, on instructions, that the sole petitioner in the writ petition is no more, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated, with no order as to costs.

Key takeaways

As a sequel to the dismissal, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the Writ Petition also stand closed.ratio¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by a registered contractor alleging that Respondent Nos. 5 to 13 (Union of India and naval authorities) illegally awarded and executed works through Respondent Nos. 14 & 15 (Sree Lalitha Constructions Projects P Ltd and its Managing Director) - allowing payments without doing works, excess rates, mines from unauthorized quarries and paid vouchers not as per actuals, including a water sump at AOB work valued at about Rs.50 crores - and seeking cancellation of the works granted. An application under Section 151 CPC had been filed for stay of execution of the works. When the matter came up, none appeared for the petitioner; the learned Central Government Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the sole petitioner was no more. Held, dismissing the Writ Petition as abated, with no order as to costs; pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed as a sequel. The substantive allegations were not adjudicated.

APHC010182932016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3506]

WEDNESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 22803/2016

Between:

BORA RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE SRI TATA RAO GARU, HINDU, AGED 61 YEARS, REGD. CONTRACTOR, RESIDENT OF DR. NO. 38-40-13, MARRIPALEM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 018.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE UNION OF INDIA, REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 110001

THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, (HEAD QUARTERS) KASHMIR ROAD, NEW DELHI 110 001.

THE FLAG OFFICERCOMMANDING IN CHIEF EASTERN, NAVAN COMMAND (HEAD QUARTERS) NAVAL BASE (POST), VISAKAPATAM 530 014

THE EASTERN NAVAL COMMAND HEAD QUARTERS, NAVAL BASE (POST), VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL NAVAL PROJECT DGNP, NAVAL BASE (POST), VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

2

SRI DESH PANDE, S/O NOT KNOWN HINDU, AGED 55 YEARS, DGNP, ' NAVAL BASE (POST), VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL DDG, &C.E. NAVAN PROJECTS, NAVAL BASE (POST) VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

SRI C BHARTI, S/O NOT KNOWN HINDU, AGED 52 YEARS, DDG&CE, NAVAL PROJECTS, NAVAL BASE (POST) VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

THE DIRECTORATE WORKS, (FORMERLY SENIOR SURVEYOR WORKS (SSW@) NAVAL BASE (POST), VISAKHAPATNAM 530 014

SRI LALJIT PRASAD, S/O NOT KNOWN HINDU, AGED 53 YEARS, DIRECTORATE WORKS (FORMERLY SENIOR SURVEYOR WORKS (SSW), NAVAL BASE (POST)VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NAVY, STATION ROAD VISAKAPTNAM -530 004

THE ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEERB/RI, , NAVAL DOCK YARD, VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

SRI P UMA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O NOT KNOWN HINDU,AGED 50 YEARS, ASSISTANT GARRISON ENGINEER-B/R I, NAVAL DOCK YARD, VISAKAPATNAM 530 014

SREE LALITHA CONSTRUCTIONS PROJECTS P LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI P. SUBBA RAJU, DR. NO. 50-104-02, PLOT NO. 4-20, NORTH EXTENSION LAY OUT, T.P.T.COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM 530 013

SRI P SUBBA RAJU, S/O NOTKNOWN HINDU, AGED 60 YEARS, CONTRACTOR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SREE LALITHA CONSTRUCTIONS PROJECTS (P) LTD., DR.

3

NO. 50-104-02, PLOT NO.4-20, NORTH EXTENSION LAY OUT, T.P.T.COLONY, VISAKAPATNAM 530 013

...RESPONDENT(S):

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 toto issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents, particularly Respondent Nos. 5 to 13, in respect of the works awarded and executed and being executed by Respondent No.14 represented by Respondent No.15;i.e., in awarding works by allowing under specifications of works, allowing payments without doing works, allowing excess rates, allowing mines from unauthorized quarries, allowing paid vouchers not as per actuals, including the work water sump at AOB as quoted by Respondent Nos. 14 & 15, which work alone, at the modest, values Rs.50 crores, or even more as on date at higher rates, higher even than those estimated by Government,colluding with the Contractors, particularly Respondent Nos. 14 & 15 as illegal, improper, unjustified, arbitrary, and capricious; and consequently to cancel the works granted in favour of the Respondent Nos. 14 & 15 and to pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant in the interests of justice and in the circumstances of the case.

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 28042 OF 2016

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 grant STAY of execution of all works pending on the hands of Respondent Nos. 14 & 15, with Respondent Nos. 5 to 13, particularly with Respondent No.5, including the present work i.e. the work at .Vada Narasapuram and Kothapatnam Villages in Rambilli Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, i.e., AOB, in the interests of justice, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and to pass such other Order or Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit

4

and proper to grant in the interests of justice and in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.K NAGESWARA REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.TENEPALLI NIRANJAN ( SC FOR CENT GOVT) )

2.A KRANTI KUMAR REDDY

5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 22803/2016

ORDER:

None appears for the petitioner.

Sri T. Niranjan, learned Central Government Counsel

appearing for respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that the sole petitioner in the writ petition is no more.

In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if

any in the Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.

ANS

______________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

Date: 19.11.2025

6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN

WRIT PETITION NO: 22803/2016

Date: 19.11.2025 ANS