K. Kesava Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

¶1

APHC010124862025

¶2

[3328]

¶3

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

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 7104/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

K. KESAVA REDDY, S/O K. BALAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 1-1-A, SIVALAYAM STREET, KARVETINAGAR, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶10

N. HITENDRA KUMAR, S/O N. KANNAIAH RAJU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 5-80, THURUU VEEDHI, KARVETINAGAR, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

K. DHANANJAYULU, S/O K. MURALI KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 4/177, BAZAR STREET, KARVETINAGAR, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶12

K. KARPAGAM, W/O K. MURALI KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 4/177, BAZAR STREET, KARVETINAGAR, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶13

K. ANDALAMMA, W/O K. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 7-87, RAJA STREET, KARVETINAGAR, KARVETINAGAR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶14

...PETITIONER(S)

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT

¶18

2

¶19

BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶20

THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH OLD MIRCHI YARD, NALLAPADU ROAD, CHUTTUGUNTA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶21

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶22

THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT

¶23

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶24

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION, MADANAPALLI, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

¶25

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶27

1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶29

1.GP FOR AGRICULTURE

¶30

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶31

The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER:

¶32

Heard Sri M. Narendra Babu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri A. Krishna Kishore, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for Respondents.

¶33

The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following prayer :

¶34

“pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein not releasing the total bills amount worth of Rs.21,89,792/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs eighty

¶35

3

¶36

nine thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) with interest 12% p.a., as per the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court in W.P. No.19525/2021 (W.P. No. 10038/2021 & Batch) dated 05.10.2021 under grant of PMKSY to the petitioner till today after completion of execution of subsidy portion for PMKSY 2018-19 Under PMKSY Scheme Various works in Chittoor Division, Chittoor District, and causing heavy loss with Interest even though the work was completed within time as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the Respondents to release and pay the total bills amount of Rs.21,89,792/- (Rupees Twenty one lakhs eighty nine thousand seven hundred and ninety two only) with Interest under grant of PMKSY forthwith to the petitioner and pass”

¶37

Sri A. Krishna Kishore, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the District Agriculture Officer, Chittoor dated 13.03.2025. Copy of it is served on the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record.

¶38

The said Written Instructions would indicate that the claim made by the Writ Petitioner is admitted to an extent of Rs.21,89,792/-. It is submitted in the Written Instructions that the said amount could not be sanctioned due to the non-availability of budget under the PMKSY Scheme, 2018-19. It is also stated that as soon as the budget is received, the subsidy amount will be deposited in the Petitioners’ Bank Account through an online transfer, and the same will be informed to the Writ Petitioner. The said Written Instructions would also indicate that the Official Respondents are seeking about three to four months' time to enable the Government to settle the dues of the Petitioner.

¶39

The relevant portion of the Written Instructions is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶40

“In this regard the respondents humbly submitted that, as per the available records, the petitioners have been executed the works pertaining to construction of Mini Percolation Tanks, Secondary Water Harvesting Structures and Farm ponds in their clusters and submitted the bills for Rs.21,89,792/- through the

¶41

4

¶42

Deputy Director of Agriculture (SC), Chittoor for sanction of subsidy amount under PMKSY Scheme during the year 2018-19.

¶43

It is respectfully submitted that, the total amount of Rs.21,89,792/-(Rupees twenty one lakhs eighty nine thousands seven hundred and ninety two only) has not been sanctioned due to non availability of budget under PMKSY 2018-19.

¶44

It is respectfully submitted that, it is being pursued by the District Agricultural Officer, Chittoor for release of budget for settlement of pending bills, soon after receipt of the budget the Subsidy amount will be paid to the beneficiaries bank accounts through online transfer and the same will be informed to the beneficiaries.

¶45

It is respectfully submit to request that 3 to 4 months time may kindly be provided to obtain the budget from the Government.”

¶46

Having regard to the above extract, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the Writ Petition at the admission stage, giving a direction to the Competent Authority to settle the dues of the Writ Petitioners within a period of three (03) months from today by depositing the said amounts into the Bank Account of the Writ Petitioners.

¶47

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.

¶48

8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶49

Date: 21.03.2025 DSV

¶50

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

K. Kesava Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Kesava Reddy v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saffron Speciality Papers Limited Vs the State of Ap

Dasi Hanumantha Reddy Vs The Palukuru Gram Panchayat

Sri Sai College of Education Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Vemuri Jitendra Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Munirathnam Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Manikonda Ramakrishna, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh