Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7343 (AP)

B MALLESWARA REDDY v. THE STATE OF AP

WP/4756/2025 · 2025-03-27

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 APHC010073622025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 4756/2025 Between: 1. B MALLESWARA REDDY, S/O B.BHASKAR REDDY, AGED 41, AGRICULTURIST, H.NO. 2-18, RESIDING AT CHINTALAPALLI VILLAGE, MIDTHUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELGAPUDI POST, GUNTUR DISTRICT, A.P. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT., A.P. 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NANDYALA, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. 4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER RWS S SECTION, MIDTHUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. 5. DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RWS AND S, SUB DIVISION ENGINEER, NANDIKOTKUR-1 NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. 6. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, CHINTHALAPALLI VILLAGE, MIDTHUR MANDAL, NANDYALA MANDAL, A.P. 7. MALA TAMMADAPALLI YELISHA, S/O JAYANNA, AGED 41 H.NO.3- 39, CHINTHALAPALLI VILLAGE, MIDTHUR MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT, A.P. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BUDIGE BHOJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY 3. Mattegunta.Sudhir,Standing Counsel For Z.P.Ps,M.P.Ps,Gram Panchayats The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri Budige Bhoja Raam, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Hruthik, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri M. Sudhir, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.6. 2. Sri Hruthik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.6 has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Panchayat Secretary, Chinthalapalli Village, Midthur Mandal, Nandyala District. Copy of it is supplied to the Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. The last paragraph of the Written Instruction would indicate that the Writ Petitioner is no way concerned with regard to the works done for ‘Drinking Water Pipeline’ and that the order has been allotted by the Special Officer to Sri Y. Nageswar Reddy. It is categorically stated in the Written Instruction that such work order has not been allotted to the Writ Petitioner. On query made by this Court, whether the Writ Petitioner has got any privity of contract between the Writ Petitioner and the Official Respondents, it is submitted that the Official Respondents have allotted the said work to Sri Y. Nageswara Reddy and that Sri Y. Nageswara Reddy, has orally directed the Writ Petitioner to execute the water pipeline works. 3 4. From the above facts, it appears that there is no privity of contract between the Writ Petitioner and the Official Respondents. Whatever is the understanding between the contractor namely Sri Y. Nageswara Reddy with the Writ Petitioner, it is between them, which can only be categorized as a private dispute. 5. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Proceeding of the District Panchayat Officer, Nandyala, dated 12.04.2024 (Ex.P.1), wherein, it has been stated that the Writ Petitioner has executed the works. In the opinion of this Court, this Proceeding of the District Panchayat Officer, Nandyala (Respondent No.3) dated 12.04.2024 (Ex.P.1) cannot be considered by the Court, inasmuch as the pipeline work has never been allotted to the Writ Petitioner as a matter of fact. At the most, such Proceeding can only be treated to the effect that the Writ Petitioner has executed the work on behalf of Sri Y. Nageswara Reddy, to whom the Special Officer has allotted the work. 6. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitioner does not have the locus to file the present Writ Petition. Writ Petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 27.03.2025 Vns