Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32109 (AP)

M SEETHARAMI REDDY v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/24271/2024 · 2025-07-24

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010469662024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 24271/2024 Between: 1. M SEETHARAMI REDDY, S/O. M. NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O. KUTAGULLA VILLAGE, KADIRI MANDAL, SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PUTTAPARTHI, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 4. THE KADIRI MUNICIPALITY, REP., BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KADIRI TOWN, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KADIRI MUNICIPALITY, KADIRI TOWN SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. 6. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KADIRI MUNICIPALITY, KADIRI TOWN, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Gudapati Lakshminarayana SC For Municipalities in Rayalaseema Region 2. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 Order:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in not releasing payment of Rs. 1,75,043/- for the work completed by the petitioner, namely, “Strengthening of CC Road from D.No. 1/1132/3E-2a to E.P. No. 118/24 in 4th Election Ward in Santosh Nagar, Adapala Street-01 at Kadiri Municipality, under General Funds,” executed under Measurement Book No. 169/2023-2024. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that amount has been credited to the account of the petitioner. 4. Recording the same, this Court is of the view that no further adjudication is required on merits. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 25.07.2025 PNS