Disposed

Amireddy Bhupal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2023WP/42594/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses a writ petition seeking a mandamus to declare the inaction of the 3rd respondent regarding the foreclosure of a work contract illegal. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the foreclosure within three weeks. The petition was then disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to pass appropriate order on foreclosure within three weeks;

Amireddy Bhupal Reddy Vs The State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.42594 of 2022

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction on the respondent No.3 in taking any action on the issue of foreclosure of the work awarded to the petitioner in spite of the memo issued by the Chief Engineer-2^nd respondent herein dated 16.08.2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders for foreclosure of agreement No.06/2018-2019 dated 01.06.2018 and to pass such other order or orders.

¶4

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was awarded the work under the Mission Kakatiya Phase-II “Restoration of Surya Samudramu at Amangal Village and Mandal Mahabubnagar/Rangareddy District converted as mini tank bund” and entered into an agreement on 01.06.2018 and the work was awarded for a sum of Rs.3,75,51,073.26/-. It is submitted that due to stagnation of water, the petitioner could not carry out the work and therefore, he expressed his inability and sought foreclosure of the contract. It is submitted that the 4^th and 5^th respondents have also recommended for foreclosure of the work due to the above reason and have addressed letters to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent addressed a letter to the 2^nd respondent herein for issuing

¶5

PMD,J W.P.No.42594 of 2022

¶6

¶7

necessary instructions in the matter and the 2^nd respondent issued a memo dated 16.08.2022 directing the 3^rd respondent to take necessary action at his level as per necessity/requirement and site conditions for foreclosure of the work. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the said memo, no decision has been taken by the 3^rd respondent so far and therefore is seeking a direction to the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the foreclosure of the work.

¶8

Learned Government Pleader for Irrigation is also heard.

¶9

Having regard to the fact that the issue of foreclosure of the contract is pending consideration by the 3^rd respondent, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the 3^rd respondent to pass appropriate order thereon within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶10

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

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

¶12

_____________________________ JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶13

Date: 10.01.2023 PRN

¶14

PMD,J W.P.No.42594 of 2022

¶15

¶16

2425

¶17

THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶18

WRIT PETITION No.42594 of 2022

¶19

Date: 10.01.2023 PRN

Amireddy Bhupal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amireddy Bhupal Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Amukunta Krishna Reddy Vs the State of Telangana

Varala Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Mohsin Bin Ibrahim Masqati Vs The State of Telangana

Y.Sulochana Rani Vs Smt. Vakati Karuna

M/s. Sri Raghavendra Maternity Home Vs The State of Telangana

J.J.Hospital Vs The State of Telangana.