VITTALA CHANDRA SEKHAR v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,
WP/21281/2021 · 2025-09-11
Harinath N
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48946 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 48946 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010350302021
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: 21281/2021 Between:
1. VITTALA CHANDRA SEKHAR, S/O. DAMODHARA RAO, AGE 50 YEARS, D.R.NO. 3A-5-8, JANGAVARI STREET, NEAR YMHA HALL, ELURU,WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI,AMARAVATHI
3. THE DIRECTOR OF WORKS AND ACCOUNT OFFICER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIIMPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. THE COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, , GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
5. THE COMMISSIONER, ELURU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
6. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELURU , WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ELURU , WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. MARELLA RADHA 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 works executed by the petitioner, vide (i) Agreement No.135/2018-19, dated 04.09.2018 and (ii) Agreement No.136/2018-19, dated 04.09.2018, 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