Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 54822 (AP)

M/s. Sri Sai Samhitha Constructions, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/23500/2021 · 2025-10-14

V Sujatha

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010379772021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 23500/2021 Between: 1. M/S. SRI SAI SAMHITHA CONSTRUCTIONS,, REP ITS MANAGING PARTNER , K.V.G.KRISHNA REDDY, S/O DARMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT- 4G YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.6-294, RAVULAPALEM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINDA,EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, DOWALESWARAM, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CENTRAL DIVISION, AMALAPURAM, EAST GODAVARI DISTRTICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2021 ...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 topleased to issue anappropriate writ or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents, in non-payment of amount due to me even after finalizing the bills, payable to them in relation to the works executed by them under Neeru- Chettu programme in East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amount due to the petitioner in respect of execution of works forthwith and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 pleased to direct the respondents to consider the payment of amount payable to the petitioner in "Neeru¬Chettu" programme in East Godavari District immediately, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 pleased to extend the time limit for implementation of the interim orders dated 14-03-2022 in I.A.No.1/2021 in W.P.No.23500/2021 for payment of amount for further period of four months from now onwards and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRIDHAR TUMMALAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP) 3. GP FOR IRRIGATION COMM AREA DEV 3 VS,J W.P.No.23500 of 2021 The Court made the following 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 or order or a direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in non-payment of amount due to me even after finalizing the bills payable to them in relation to the works executed by them under “Neeru-Chettu” programme in East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to consider the payment of amount due to the petitioner in respect of execution of works forthwith and to pass such other order or orders ….” 2. When the writ petition came up for admission on 14.03.2022, this Court was pleased to pass the following interim direction in I.A.No.1 of 2021: “In the circumstances, the respondents are directed to pay the approved and final bill amount due to the petitioner within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 3. Today, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that, pending writ petition, the respondent authorities have paid the amounts due to the petitioner. 4. Recording the same, this Writ Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Dated: 15.10.2025 KGR