Disposed

Medukonda Venu Gopal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC13 Jul 2015WP/21048/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a civil contractor questioning non-release of final bill amount as illegal. Court disposed of petition at admission stage directing respondent to expedite disposal of petitioner representation within four weeks without merits. No costs.

What did the court decide?

Directed second respondent to consider petitioner representation dated 22.5.2015 and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Medukonda Venu Gopal, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2015) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 21048 of 2015

¶3

Date : 13-07-2015

¶4

Between : Medukonda Venu gopal S/O M Krishnam Naidu R/o Flat No. 503, Park City Enclave, Dargamitta, Nellore

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

And

¶7

The State of A P Rep by its Prl Secretary, Municipal Admn Department, Secretariat, Hyd & another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

The Court made the following:

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21048 of 2015

¶11

ORAL ORDER:

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Government Pleader

¶13

for first respondent and Sri S.D.Saleem learned standing counsel for second respondent.

¶14

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the second respondent in not releasing the final bill amount bearing E.O.A No. 593 dated 20.5.2014 for Rs.4,80,867/- andE.O.A No. 594 dated 20.5.2014 for Rs.4,78,305/- totaling to Rs.9,59,172/- as illegal and for a consequential direction to release the same.

¶15

3. Petitioner claims to be a civil contractor and entered into an agreement with second respondent dated 17.2.2014 for laying WBM Road and construction of CC drain work in Gangothri Nagar 1^st and 2^nd cross and agreement dated 17.2.2014 for laying WBM road and construction of CC drain in Gangothri nagar main road, Nellore pursuant to tender notice dated 17.1.2014, and on completion of the subject works obtained lab report dated 16.3.2014 to the satisfaction of second respondent and submitted two final bills for an amount of Rs.9,59,172/-. Having failed in his persuasions for release of the amount, he has made a representation dated 22.5.2015 to second respondent. The said representation is pending and no action is taken thereon. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶16

4. When the matter is taken up, learned counsel on either side agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage with a direction to the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner expeditiously.

¶17

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 22.5.2015 and pass appropriate orders as warranted under law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. No costs. Having regard to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, are closed.

¶18

P NAVEEN RAO,J

¶19

DATE:13/7/2015 TVK

¶20

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

¶21

WRIT PETITION No. 21048 of 2015

¶22

Date : 13-07-2015

Medukonda Venu Gopal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medukonda Venu Gopal, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chiranjeevi B S/o. Kistaiah, Vs The State of Telangana

Panasa Thirupathi, Vs The State of Telangana

K.L.S.R. Infratech Limited, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Chinna Mastan, S/o Kamal Saheb, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its

Ameen Pasha Vs The State Of Telengana Rep By Principal Secretary

Syed Muzaffar, Vs State of Telangana