Dismissed¶30

T. Venkateswarlu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Jan 2026WP/21698/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court (Amaravati), Writ Petition No.21698 of 2021, decided 02.01.2026 by Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. Article 226 petition seeking mandamus for release of Rs.1,37,83,730/- payment bill for NREGS road work (Nakerikallu to Gurajala R and B Road, 35/0 to Miriyala, Karempudi Mandal, Guntur district) under Agreement dated 10-08-2018; respondents included Finance & Planning Secretary, Panchayat Raj Secretary, SE/EE Panchayat Raj Circle Guntur, PAO Guntur. Dismissed for non-prosecution (no representation for petitioner); no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed; merits not adjudicated; no cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Absence of representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed 'For Dismissal' evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the case. ¶29

T. Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010350732021

¶2

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

¶3

[3330]

¶4

FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.21698 of 2021

¶8

Between:

¶9

T. VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. LA KSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 1-12-9/6A, BARAMPET, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶13

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

¶14

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, GUNTUR.

¶15

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE OFFICE, PIU DIVISION, GUNTUR.

¶16

THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS, OFFICER,GUNTUR.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

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 a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring inaction of the Respondent No.1 in releasing the funds for payment bill an amount of Rs. Rs.1,37,83,730/- to the work of Providing Road from Nakerikallu to Gurajala R and B Road at 35/0 to Miriyala in Karempudi Mandal under the Agreement dated 10-08-2018 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay an amount of

¶19

¶20

Rs.1,37,83,730/- the bill payable to the petitioner for the work executed by them under the scheme of NREGS.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.KANADHI BHATLA SRINIVASA MURTHY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶25

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Though the matter is listed under the caption “For Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the case.

¶30

Therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed for nonprosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶31

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

¶32

__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO

Date: 02.01.2026

Siva/CMK