APHC010711532022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the Twenty Eighth Day of July two Thousand And Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No: 42086 of 2022 Between: 1. Rayudu Agro Enterprises,, r/o plot. no. 331-B, M.G. auto nagar, Proddatur, Y.S.R kadapa district. rep.by its proprietor, Telladarla Subbarayudu s/o obanna, aged about 47 years, occ- business h. no. 6/196, 6th ward, Sagiliguddupalle, Proddatur mandal, Y.S.R Kadapa district. ...Petitioner and 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by Principal Secretary, Agricultural Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. 2. The Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Agricultural Department, old Mirchi yard, Nallapadu road, Guntur district. 3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi. ...Respondents: Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Dasari S.V.V.S.V.Prasad Counsel for the respondents: 1. G.P. for Finance & Planning 2. G.P. for Agriculture The Court made the following: 2 WP No.42086 of 2022 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the amount for supplying the machineries / equipments to the respondent authorities by the petitioner even though admitted due of an amount of Rs. 6,67,674/- (Six lakhs sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy four rupees only) is illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, contrary to the Rules and Regulations and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 6,67,674/- (Six lakhs sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy four rupees only) with cumulative interest. 2. Ms K.Srilakshmi, learned counsel representing the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relief has become infructuous as the amount had been paid. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________ B.S.BHANUMATHI Dt.28.07.2025 PNV