Disposed¶40

K Venkateswara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jul 2026WP/20707/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition closed as moot/nothing remains for adjudication; petitioner submitted claimed amount already received; non-release of contractor payment Rs. 2,84,05,716/- for R&B works (Agt. CR. No. 73/2022-23 dated 09-01-2023); respondents: State of AP Finance Department, R&B Department, SE (R&B) Circle Guntur, EE (R&B) Division Bapatla; Article 226 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC interim applications (IA No. 1 of 2024 interim release; IA No. 1 of 2025 leave for counter affidavit); writ of Mandamus; 18 percent per annum interest sought; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed; Justice Ravi Cheemalapati; decided 06.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was closed (no adjudication) as the petitioner had already received the amount claimed, with no order as to costs. ¶40

K Venkateswara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

RC,J W.P.No.20707 of 2024

¶2

¶3

Date of reserved for order s : Date of pronouncement : 06.07.2026 Date of uploading : 08.07.2026

¶4

APHC010405742024

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶6

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶7

[3332]

¶8

MON D AY, THE 6^th DAY OF JULY 2026

¶9

PRESENT

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO: 20707/2024

¶12

Between:

¶13

K VENKATESWAR A RAO, S/O. JOGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO. G -1, SRI SAMBASIVA HEIGHTS, VIJAYAPURI COLONY, 1ST LI N E, JKC COLLEGE ROAD, GUNTUR CITY AND DISTRICT, ANDHR A PRADESH.

¶14

...PETITIONER

¶15

AND

¶16

THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DE P ARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUN T UR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE STATE OF A NDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY I T S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, R AND B DEPARTMENT, S ECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI, AM A RAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶18

THE SUPERINTE N DING ENGINEER, (R AND B) CIR C LE, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRIC T .

¶19

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (R AND B) DIVISI O N, BAPATLA, GUNTUR DISTRIC T .

¶20

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶21

RC,J W.P.No.20707 of 2024

¶22

¶23

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing an amount of Rs. 2,84,05,716/- to the petitioner for the execution of works, vide Agt. CR. No. 73/2022-23, dated 09-01-2023, respectively as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and against the Norms of the Public Policy and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent authorities to release the amounts payable to the petitioners with an interest at 18 percent per annum and to pass

¶24

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

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 respondent authorities to release an amount of Rs. 2,84,05,716/to the petitioners for the execution of works, vide Agt. CR. No. 73/2022-23, dated 09-01-2023, respectively, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass

¶26

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶27

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 leave for filing of the Counter Affidavit in WP.No.20707 of 2024 and pass

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶29

1.VENKAT SAILENDRA G

¶30

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶31

1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS

¶32

2.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

RC,J W.P.No.20707 of 2024

¶35

¶36

ORDER

¶37

This Writ Petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent authorities in not releasing the amounts to the petitioner for the works executed by it.

¶38

Ms. S.Manaswi, learned counsel, representing Sri Venkat Sailendra G., learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner had received the amount claimed in this writ petition and hence nothing remains for adjudication in this writ petition and the same can be closed.

¶39