APHC010384072025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 855 of 2025 Bench Sr.No:-54 [3483] The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Appellant(s) Vs. M/s. Sri Srinavasa and Company and others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Appellants: Mr. Ravi Kumar Ponakampalli Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mr. Nuthalapati Mohan appearing vice Mr. V V Lakshmi Narayana, GP for Finance Planning CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 16th September, 2025. P C : The present writ appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 13.03.2024, passed in W.P.No.3589 of 2024. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner M/s.Sri Srinivasa & Company claiming that an amount of Rs.19.20 Lakhs was not being released in its favour despite completion of the construction works which had been allotted to it. 2. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge based upon a statement made by the learned Standing Counsel for Samagra Shiksha who had appeared for respondent Nos.2, 5 to 7 therein. A copy of the instructions were purportedly placed before the learned Single Judge which 2 HCJ & RCJ WA_855_2025 were received by the said counsel from the Additional Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Guntur, dated 17.02.2024, wherein it was stated that an amount of Rs.94,29,741/- had been paid to the petitioner and further that during the execution, since some materials were changed as per the required guidelines, the estimated cost had been increased, and an another Rs.19.20 Lakhs was required to complete the work, for which administrative sanction had not been obtained. 3. The learned Single Judge by treating this as an admitted amount disposed of the petition and directed the respondents to release the amount of Rs.19.20 Lakhs in favour of the petitioner within the prescribed four months period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the direction was issued behind the back of the petitioner, without affording an opportunity of being heard and that the order was unsustainable. 5. Learned counsel for the Finance Department would submit that in fact no amount was payable to the petitioner as no administrative sanction had ever been accorded, which would otherwise entitle him to claim the additional amount of Rs.19.20 Lakhs. 6. Without going into the merits of the case, we find that since the petition had been disposed of at the admission stage, without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant, the order is required to be set 3 HCJ & RCJ WA_855_2025 aside. Accordingly, this writ appeal is allowed, judgment and order impugned is set aside. 7. W.P.No.3589 of 2024 be listed before the learned Single Judge having Roster on 07.10.2025 for consideration afresh. In the meantime, an appropriate response be filed by the appellant. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. SSN