Disposed

Manikanti Venkata Ramanamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC22 Sept 2016WP/32257/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a writ petition under Article 226. The High Court directed the Panchayat Raj Department to expeditiously dispose of a representation filed by the first petitioner regarding the settlement of bills for contract works completed by her deceased husband.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to dispose of the representation dated 12.11.2015 within two months.

Manikanti Venkata Ramanamma, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Telangana HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.SUNIL CHOWDARY

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.32257 of 2016

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in settling the bills of the husband of the first petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents.

¶6

A perusal of the record reveals that the husband of the first petitioner was allotted contract works relating to the Panchayat Raj Department. It is the case of the petitioners that the husband of the first petitioner completed the formation of road from Kadiri Municipality to Godduvelagala Village and other works in the year 1988. According to the petitioners, the respondents have to pay an amount of Rs.25,30,676/-. The first petitioner’s husband died on 05.07.2015. Even after the death of the husband of the first petitioner, the respondents have not paid the balance amount to the first petitioner. The first petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.11.2015 to the second respondent with a request to pay the balance amount.

¶7

At the time of arguments, the only relief sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners is to direct the second respondent to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner dated 12.11.2015 as expeditiously as possible. The learned Government Pleader also consented for the same.

¶8

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties, the second respondent is hereby directed to dispose of the representation of the first petitioner dated 12.11.2015 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶11

Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶12

_________________________ T.SUNIL CHOWDARY, J Date: 22.09.2016 Ivd

Manikanti Venkata Ramanamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manikanti Venkata Ramanamma, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/ s. Sri Kalyani Agro Marketing Company, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Anukar Agri Life, Vs The Director of Agriculture

M/s. Yasaswini Bio-tech and Agri Sciences, Vs The Director of Agriculture

Mr. Nune Srinivas, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Sidda Crop Care, Vs The Director of Agriculture, State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Vijaya Commercial Corporation Vs State of Andhra Pradesh