APHC010604992017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] TUESDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5635/2017 Between: K. Gangadharam & 3 Ors. and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of A P I C Dept 7 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. T V S PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY (AP) 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. A S C BOSE The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology for the respondents. 2 2. Challenging the action of the respondents in not taking action on the representation of the petitioners for payment of maintenance charges of the ramps and access roads to the sand reaches of Ankampalem, Tadipudi, Pulidindi and Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 3. It is contended by the petitioners that they have rendered service as Jattu Coolie workers. The 1st petitioner is Mestri at Ankamapalem Sand Ramp of Atreyapuram Mandal, East Godavari District and petitioners 2 to 4 are the Jattu workers in Tadipudi, Pulidindi and Atreyapuram Ramp respectively of the same Mandal and they were engaged in loading sand to the vehicles and also transporting the same. However, they were not paid for the services rendered. 4. The 6th respondent has filed counter-affidavit stating that these sands were maintained by the Mandal Level Task Force Team to avoid involvement of private agencies. The collection of loading charges and maintenance of paths were dealt by the jattu workers in the sand reaches of Ankam Palem, Tadipudi, Atreyapuram. 5. In view of the submissions made by the 6th respondent that the entire amounts were collected by the Jattu / Mestri workers. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners against the respondents is not maintainable. 3 6. Having regard to the contentions advanced, the Court is of the view that issuance of Mandamus to the respondents would not arise. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 11.03.2025 MSI 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 5635/2017 Date: 11.03.2025 MSI