APHC010016292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 1187/2025 Between: R Bhaskar Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents herein in not releasing not releasing admitted bill amount of Rs.8,09,968/- vide 10056015006 despite successful completion of the works executed by me in terms of Agreement No 816/201718 dated 13.06.2017 approved and entered by the 2nd respondent under work work “Bhoomi Mana Vooru Committee Members duly following the instruction given by vide Go MS No 187 W R CAD Dated 19.04.2017” and the same was generated in Comprehensive Financial Management System CFMS inspite of repeated requests as illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and violative to Articles 14 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein forthwith to release and pay the aforesaid amount along with interest 24 per annum” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, learned Government Pleader for Irrigation and Command Area Development, placed on record the written instructions given by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Irrigation Division, Palamaner, wherein it is stated that basing on the verification report, the bill was uploaded in CFMS portal on 03.01.2025 and token number was generated as 2024-2046436 and the amount was paid to the contractor vide RBI 0132558043060, dated 13.01.2025. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that since the petitioner has received amount, the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. 5. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is closed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM, J Date: 24.03.2025 Ksn