1 APHC010227632025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 11844/2025 Between: 1. ALLA SALOMI, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, AGE.27 YEARS, D.NO.2-38, R/O. TSUNDURU (V), TSUNDURU (M), BAPATLA DISTRICT. 2. M. VIJAYA BHASKAR,, CHAIRMAN OF HWC, S/O. YESU PADAM, AGED.47 YEARS, D.NO.3-54, R/O. AMBEDKAR (V), TSUNDURU (M), BAPATIA DISTRICT. 3. V. APPI REDDY,, S/O. VENKAT REDDY, AGED. 55 YEARS D.NO.4-60, TSUNDURU (V), TSUNDURU (M), BAPATLA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT,SECREFARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DIST., 3. THE CHAIRMEN AND MANAGING TRUSTEE GGMP TRUST, (GADAPA GADAPAKU MANA PRABHUTHVAM), AT TSUNDURU, BAPATLA DISTICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTRATE, BAPATLA, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEERFAC, RWS AND S SUB- DIVISION, 2 VEMURU, BAPATLA DISTRICT. 6. THE ASST EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RWS AND S (QA AND QC) SUB- DIVISION, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K L N SWAMY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. K. Indu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri K.L.N. Swamy, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Finance Planning. 2. Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development and Finance Planning has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Executive Engineer, RWS&S Division, Bapatla. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioners 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 Petitioners is Rs.24,17,644.00/-. The Quality Control Recovery is for an amount of Rs.2,84,871.00/-, and that the balance amount due to the Petitioners is Rs.21,32,773.00/-. 4. It is noticed that the Writ Petitioners have claimed the amount of Rs.21,66,461/- whereas the Written Instruction given by the Executive Engineer would indicate that the Petitioners are only entitled to Rs.21,32,773.00/-. 3 5. On instructions, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioners would submit that the Writ Petitioners are aggregable to accept the amount as indicated in the Written Instructions (Rs.21,32,773.00/-) as full and final settlement if the amount is paid as expeditiously as possible. 6. 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.21,32,773.00/- as full and final settlement within a period of twelve (12) weeks from today, by completing all the inter-departmental and intra-departmental administrative process by cooperation and coordination between all the concerned departments and transfer the said amount to the bank accounts of the Writ Petitioners within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. 7. Writ Petitioners are directed to submit copies of their bank account details to the Competent Authority forthwith, for effective compliance. 8. With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands allowed to the extent indicated. No order as to costs. 9. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 10.07.2025 Vns