Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48043 (AP)

M/s Mithra Engineering Constructions v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/27057/2021 · 2025-09-11

Harinath N

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010445302021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 27057/2021 Between: 1. M/S MITHRA ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS, REP., BY ITS PROPRIETOR M. RAGHAVA RAO, S/O. PITCHAIAH, AGED 56 YEARS, R/O. THROVAGUNTA, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, AP ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH CENTER FOR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICES, 6TH FLOOR, C- BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, GORANTLA, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ONGOLE,PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ONGOLE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 6. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNTS VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT 2 7. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITHA GOTTIPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. M MANOHAR REDDY (SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP ) 3. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the Respondents in not releasing the payments for the work executed by the petitioner, vide Agreement No.1344(A)/2018-19, dated 30.01.2019 and supplementary Agreement No.316/2019-20, dated 29.07.2019, executed under Measurement Book. 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, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date: 12.09.2025 SR