Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 48464 (AP)

CHEPURI KHADHAR BABU v. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

WP/23081/2025 · 2025-09-14

Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010443682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 23081/2025 Between: Chepuri Khadhar Babu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITON No.23081 OF 2025 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue an appropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents in not releasing the bill payment of Rs.2,79,098/- out of an amount of Rs. 13,79,098/- even after finalizing the bill by the respondents before two years back for execution of work under MGNREGS for construction of Pucca Internal Roads in Settivarigudem of Venkatapuram Village in Chinthalapudi Mandal of Eluru District (Old West Godavari) in Venkatapuram Village in Chinthalapudi Mandal of Eluru District (Old West Godavari) in Venkatapuram Gramapanchayat in Chinthalapudi Mandal of Eluru District (Old West Godavari), as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and also violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to pay the bill amount of Rs.2,79,098/- out of an amount of Rs.l3,79,098/-to the petitioner forthwith interest of 18 percent and pass….” Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, during the pendency of the writ petition, the claim of the petitioner has already been redressed by the respondents. Therefore, no further adjudication is necessary in the present Writ Petition, and accordingly, the Writ Petition has become infructuous. Since the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed by the respondents, no further adjudication is required and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 16.09.2025 kkllkk 257 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.23081 of 2025 15.09.2025 kkllkk