Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 45272 (AP)

POCHA VENKATA REDDY v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/5605/2024 · 2025-12-23

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010103812024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 5605/2024 Between: 1. POCHA VENKATA REDDY, S/O. PULLA REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,R/O. D.NO.2-150, BODEMMANURVILLAGE,UYYALAWADA MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE KUMOOL DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYALA DISTRICT AT NANDYALA. (ERSTWHILE KUMOOL DISTRICT). 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, K.C CANAL DIVISION, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, KUMOOL, KUMOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, , K.C CANAL, DIVISION, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. (ERSTWHILE KUMOOL DISTRICT). 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND VS,J W.P No.5605 of 2024 2 PLANNING, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of withholding the HMD and WHA deposit amounts of Rs. 28,38,652/-, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of 30 different irrigation works (K.C Canal, Division) in Bandiatmakur Mandal of Nandyal District.,(Erstwhile Kumool District) under Neeru-Chettu programme, issued by 4th and 5th respondents.. as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the sum of money payable pursuant to said withheld amount dues to the petitioner and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to direct the respondents to release and pay EMD & WHA deposit amounts of Rs. 28,38,652/- payable to the petitioner for 30 different irrigation works (K.C Canal, Division) in Bandiatmakur Mandal of Nandyal District.,(Erstwhile Kumool District) under “Neem- Chettu” programme, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass such Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD (AP) VS,J W.P No.5605 of 2024 3 The Court made the following Order: The present Writ Petition came to be 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 in non-payment of withholding the HMD & WHA deposit amounts of Rs.28,38,652/-, payable to the petitioner after the successful completion of the execution of 30 different irrigation works (K.C Canal, Division) in Bandiatmakur Mandal of Nandyal District., (Erstwhile Kurnool District) under “Neeru-Chettu” programme, issued by 4th and 5th respondents., as illegal, irregular, irrational and offends under Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the sum of money payable pursuant to said withheld amount dues to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. At the time of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that, pending the writ petition, the respondents have paid the amounts due to the petitioner. Therefore, requested this Court to close the writ petition. 4. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. No costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:24.12.2025 Ksj