Pentala Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

Pentala Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief pronounced by the Court; the writ petition was closed upon recording that the respondent authorities had paid the amounts due to the petitioner during its pendency, with no order as to costs, and pending interlocutory applications stood closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents' withholding of the payment of the bill amount of Rs.15,22,393/-, despite finalization of the bills payable to the petitioner for works executed in Cheekateegalapalem village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, was illegal and arbitrary, entitling the petitioner to payment together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of execution of the work. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The Court recorded the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that, pending the writ petition, the respondent authorities have paid the amounts due to the petitioner.

Key takeaways

Recording the payment of the dues, the writ petition is closed, with no order as to costs.ratio¶41
As a sequel to the closure of the writ petition, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (W.P.No.929 of 2022, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, V. Sujatha, J.) filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Pentala Venkateswarlu seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring illegal and arbitrary the respondents' withholding of the bill amount of Rs.15,22,393/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs twenty two thousand three hundred and ninety three only), finalized as payable to the petitioner for works executed in Cheekateegalapalem village, Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, and directing payment with interest at 18% per annum from the date of execution of the work. When the matter was heard on 24.09.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, pending the writ petition, the respondent authorities had paid the amounts due to the petitioner. Recording the same, the Court closed the writ petition with no order as to costs, and as a sequel all pending interlocutory applications (including IA No.1 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC) stood closed. No precedent was cited or relied upon; no substantive ruling on the legality of withholding payment was made.

[3333]

APHC010007362022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

WEDNESDAY, T H E TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEP T EMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

WRIT PETITION NO: 929/2022

Between:

PENTALA VENK A TESWARLU,, S/O. PENTALA NA G AIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEAR S , R/O. 3-127, VELLATUR VILLAG E , BOLLAPALLI MANDAL, GUNTU R DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER

AND

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PA N CHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL D E VELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT, V E LAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WA T ER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GU N TUR DISTRICT.

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GU N TUR DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER IRRIGATION CIR C LE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRIC T .

THE DISTRICT N O DAL OFFICER, IRRIGATION CIR C LE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRIC T .

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, N.S.J.C.O AND M AND S.I.F.T DIVISION, VINUK O NDA, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2

VS,J W.P.No.929 of 2022

...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 topleased to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of bill amount of Rs. 15,22,393 /- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs twenty two thousand three hundred and ninety three only) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of works executed in Cheekateegalapalem village of Vinukonda Mandal Guntur District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider for the payment of amount along with interest 18percent per annum from the date of execution of the work to the account of the petitioner and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2022

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 pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondent authorities to release the amount to the petitioner along with interest as per the entitlement for the execution of total works executed in the Cheekateegalapalem village of Vinukonda Mandal Guntur District, A.P., until disposal of the above writ petition, and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.SRINIVASA RAO NARRA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

2.GP FOR REVENUE

3.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

4.GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV

3

VS,J

W.P.No.929 of 2022

The Court made the following Order:

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

“… to issue any writ, order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of bill amount of Rs.15,22,393/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs twenty two thousand three hundred and ninety three only) even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the execution of works executed in Cheekateegalapalem village of Vinukonda Mandal, Guntur District, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to consider for the payment of amount along with interest 18% per annum from the date of execution of the work to the account of the petitioner and to pass such other order or order s ….”

Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, Mr. M.Narendra Babu, learned counsel representing Mr. Srinivasa Rao Narra, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, pending writ petition, the respondent authorities have paid the amounts due to the petitioner.

Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed

__________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Dated: 24.09.2025 MDP