APHC010583742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 30264/2025 Between: 1. PATNA RAMA CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, S/O.P.PEDDA MADDILETI REDDY, H.NO.2-17, 00 COLONY, BUJUNUR VILLAGE, GADIVEMULA MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND CAD DEPARTMENT (WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT) SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT K C CANAL DIVISION, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 5. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, K C CANAL SUB-DIVISION, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 6. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.30264 of 2025 7. SRI A VENKATA RAMANA REDDY, , AGED 57 YEARS S/O. A. SRINIVASA REDDY, H.NO.3-45, GADIGAREVULA, GADIVEMULA, NANDYAL 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 to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos.5 AND 6 in considering the Petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2025 as illegal, mala-fide, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to disburse the balance amount of Rs.9,42,787/- to the Petitioner by considering the Petitioners representation dated 25.10.2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to direct the 5TH Respondent to consider the Petitioners representation dated 25.10.2025 pending disposal of the writ petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUDATI GNANENDER KUMAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR REVENUE 2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.30264 of 2025 ORDER: The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- “….to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents Nos.5 and 6 in considering the Petitioner's representation dated 25.10.2025 as illegal, mala-fide, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Consequently direct the respondents to disburse the balance amount of Rs.9,42,787/- to the Petitioner by considering the Petitioners representation dated 25.10.2025 ….” 2. The petitioner herein, one C.V.Ramanayya along with Dhereddy Ayyapu Reddy executed government-nominated Neeru-Chettu works during the years 2018-2019 in various villages including Bilakaguduru, Bujunuru, Arlagadda, Gadigarevula, Chindukuru, Durvashi, Koratamaddi Bollavaram, etc. to a total value of approximately Rs.11 crores. The said works were duly recorded in the M-Books through the 6th respondent. The contractors used to submit bills and share the payments equally among themselves as partners. Out of the total pending balance bills for the executed works, the petitioner’s share is Rs.20,41,289/-. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that, despite having executed the works during 2018–2019 and being entitled for the said payment, his claim has not been settled and he came to know that the 7th respondent herein filed W.P.No.27836 of 2025 before this Court claiming that the bill amounts are payable to him, wherein the learned Government Pleader for Irrigation 4 VS,J W.P.No.30264 of 2025 submitted that the cheque was already prepared in favour of the 7th respondent and the 7th respondent was advised to approach the concerned authorities to collect the said cheque. Recording the same, this Court disposed of the writ petition by order dated 10.10.2025. On coming to know the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.10.2025 to respondent Nos.5 and 6 bringing to their notice all the facts and requested them not to issue cheque in favour of the 7th respondent herein. However, as no orders have been passed on the said representation till date, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to consider his claim. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the petitioner’s representation dated 25.10.2025 is still pending consideration before respondent Nos.5 and 6, this Court is of the opinion that instead of going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.5 and 6 to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 25.10.2025, in accordance with law, within a period of ten (10) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 04.11.2025. KGR