M/s. Sri Mounica Constructions, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/7879/2024 · 2026-04-07
Subba Reddy Satti
body2024
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 1679 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2024 DAILYLAW 1679 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010151532024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 7879/2024 Between:
1. M/S. SRI MOUNICA CONSTRUCTIONS,, D.NO. 2-214, MAIN ROAD, MERIAPALEM VILLAGE, ATREYAPURAM MANDAL,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MALLIDI V.V. SATYANARAYANA REDDY. 2. MALLIDI V.V. SATYANARAYANA REDDY,, S/O. SUBBIREDDY, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC- CONTRACTOR, R/O. H.NO. 2-127, SRINIVASA NAGAR, MERLAPALEM VILLAGE, ATREYAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, THULLUR MANDAL, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, THULLUR MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, NH-16, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. Page 2 of 4
4. THE ENGINEERINCHIEF, PANCHAYAT RAJ, Z.P.COMPOUND, OPPOSITE TO PWD GROUNDS, M.G.ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, NIDHI BHAVAN, MANGALAGIRI IT PARK, BEHIND APIIC BUILDING, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT, ANAKAPALLI. 7. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ (PRI) DIVISION, ANAKAPALLI, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 9. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, PAY AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S): 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 or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of balance of Rs. 4,33,000/- even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Widening of existing BT Road from Sankaram S.C. Colony to Proposed District Collector's Office at Anakapalli, Anakapalli District for an amount of Rs. 4,33,000/- as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 4,33,000/- to the petitioner in respect of.
execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs. 4,33,000/- to the petitioner in respect of execution of work i.e., Widening of existing BT Road from Sankaram S.C. Colony to Proposed District Collector's Office at Anakapalli, Anakapalli District for an amount of Rs. 4,33,000/- forthwith pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING
2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following:
::ORDER ::
The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount payable to the petitioner in relation to the work executed by the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development submitted that pending the writ petition, the authorities have paid the amount to the petitioner. Hence, no further adjudication is required in the writ petition. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner endorses the same.
4. Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No
order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 08.04.2026 IKN
263 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
WRIT PETITION NO: 7879 of 2024
Date: 08.04.2026 IKN