Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53842 (AP)

SIRISANAGANDLA SURESH v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/23691/2023 · 2025-11-23

Ravi Cheemalapati

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010457702023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: Between: 1. SIRISANAGANDLA SURESH, S/O. S.RAGHUPATHI RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 7 ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 1. THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I. (PIU) DIVISION, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI RAJ SUB DIVISION, ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 23691/2023 SIRISANAGANDLA SURESH, S/O. S.RAGHUPATHI RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 7-96-9, RAJA NAGAR, KARIVENA VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. E EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I. (PIU) DIVISION, KURNOOL THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI RAJ SUB DIVISION, ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, ATMAKUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3332] MONDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI SIRISANAGANDLA SURESH, S/O. S.RAGHUPATHI RAO, AGED 42 9, RAJA NAGAR, KARIVENA VILLAGE, ...PETITIONER THE STATE OF AP, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, E EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.R.I. (PIU) DIVISION, KURNOOL THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYATI RAJ SUB- THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, MANDAL PRAJA PARISHAD, ...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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in withholding the payment of amounts even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the work of Construction of Anganwadi Centre Building-1 at Indireswaram (V) of Atmakur Mandal vide Agreement No. /2018-19, dated 01.02.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.6,82,278/- due to the petitioner in respect of execution of afore mentioned works forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 respondents to take steps for paying the amount of Rs.6,82,278/- due to the petitioner in respect of the work executed by him, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GINJUPALLI SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER Sri Ramineni Satish Babu, learned counsel, representing Sri Ginjupalli Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has received the amount claimed in this writ petition and hence this writ petition may be closed. 2. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed. , __________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI RR