Dismissed

Kaki Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC14 Jul 2015WP/21567/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition by directing respondents to consider the petitioner's representations regarding unpaid dues from MGNREGS work and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representations and pass appropriate orders within four weeks.

Kaki Prasada Rao Vs The State of Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶2

CASE NO.WRIT PETITION No.21567 of 2015

¶3

Between:

¶4

Kaki Prasada Rao, S/o. K. Narayana Murthy, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Kamavarapukota Village, Kamavarapukota Mandal, West Godavari District.

¶5

.. Petitioner

¶6

AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayatraj Department, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Hyderabad & 3 others

¶7

.. Respondents

¶8

DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.07.2015

¶9

SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶11

1 Whether Reporters of Local Yes/No newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

¶12

2 Whether the copies of judgment may Yes/No be marked to Law Reports/Journals

¶13

3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship Yes/No wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.21567 of 2015

¶16

ORDER:

¶17

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 4^th respondent in not making the payment of petitioner’s due amount together with interest by considering his representations, dated 20.06.2013, 26.08.2014 and 23.03.2015, as illegal and to consequently direct respondents 2 to 4 to make the payment of due amount together with interest.

¶18

2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ravi Cheemalapati, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 3 and 4 and with their consent, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission.

¶19

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is resident of Kamavarapukota Village and doing contract business. He was given contract work under MGNREGS Scheme to supply material for construction of 42 public toilets in Kamavarapukota in the year 2013. Accordingly, the petitioner supplied the required material and submitted the bills. The third respondent credited the amount payable to petitioner to the account of 4^th respondent and vide letter, dated 17.6.2013, directed the fourth respondent to release the amount of Rs.1,61,780/- to petitioner. Since payment is not made, petitioner made representations dated 20.06.2013, 26.8.2014 and 23.03.2015 and the same are pending. Hence, the present writ

¶20

petition is instituted.

¶21

4. When the matter is taken up, learned counsels appearing for the parties agreed for disposal of the writ petition with a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to expeditiously dispose of the representations of the petitioner.

¶22

5. Having regard to the same, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents 2 to 4 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 20.06.2013, 26.08.2014 and 23.03.2015, and pass appropriate orders, as warranted under law, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the decision to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

¶23

P.NAVEEN RAO, J

¶24

Date: 14^th July, 2015 KL/ tvk

¶25

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.21567 of 2015

¶27

Date: 14^th July, 2015

¶28

KL/tvk

Kaki Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaki Prasada Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Smt. D. Sujatha, Vs The State of Telangana

T.Rama Laxmulu S/o Nagaiah Vs The State of Telangana

Sri G.Vijay Kumax,S/o Sri G.Ramoji, Vs The Commissioner