Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12633 (AP)

SRI JADDU RADHA KRISHNA v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/7815/2025 · 2025-04-22

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010149642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 7815/2025 Between: 1. SRI JADDU RADHA KRISHNA, S/O NAGESHWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O D/NO -2/30, GOLLAPALEM, NELAKURRU, PO CHINNAPURAM, KRISHNADISTRICT. 521001 ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I SUB-DIVISION, MACHILIPATNAM MANDAL, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 6. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I SUB-DIVISION, MANDAL PARSHAD, MACHILIPATNAM KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CHALLA HRUDAY RAJ Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard SriChaitanya Polisetti, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Challa Hruday Raj, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. 2. Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Machilipatnam, dated 17.04.2025. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The Payment Summary in the Written Instructions would indicate that the total value of work done by the Writ Petitioner is Rs.13,31,229.00/-. The Summary Recovery is for an amount of Rs.1,61,276.00/-, and that the balance amount due to the Petitioner is of Rs.11,69,953.00/-. 4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, having taken instructions from his client, is agreeable to accept the balance amount of Rs.11,69,953.00/- as full and final settlement on the condition that the said due amount may be directed to be remitted to the Writ Petitioner as expeditiously as possible. 5. Having regard to the above facts, this Court deems it appropriate to allow this Writ Petition, directing the Official Respondents to pay a sum of Rs.11,69,953.00/-as full and final settlement within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today, by completing all the inter-departmental administrative formalities by cooperation and coordination between all the concerned 3 departments and transfer the said amount to the bank account of the Writ Petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. 6. Writ Petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the bank account details to the Competent Authority forthwith, for effective compliance. 7. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 22.04.2025 Vns