Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1566 (AP)

Vallepu Kotamma, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/8892/2026 · 2026-04-06

Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010171112026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8892/2026 Between: 1. VALLEPU KOTAMMA,, W/O. SEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O.8-29-361, GANESH NAGAR, AGATHAVARAPPADU, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522509. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522238. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522238. 3. THE MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522503. 4. THE MUNICIPAL ENGINEER, MANGALAGIRI TADEPALLI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, PINCODE. 522503. 2 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: Heard Ms. Devasri Roshan Kancharla, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, Ms. D. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Finance & Planning and S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation. 2. S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, has submitted the Written Instructions furnished by the Commissioner, Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation dated 06.04.2026. Copy of it is supplied to the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and the same is taken on record. 3. From the record, it appears that the works had commenced, and the husband of the Writ Petitioner, who had undertaken the contract works, had completed the same long ago. Since he is no more, wife of the Contractor has filed the present Writ Petitions seeking release of EMD & FSD. Since the amounts deposited by the husband of the Writ Petitioner had been withheld by the Respondents since long time, there shall be a direction to the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 to release the EMD and FSD within a period of one (01) week from the date of uploading of this Order on the website of this 3 Court. It is a settled law that the Respondents cannot plead paucity of funds when it comes to return of the EMD and FSD deposits. (Please see (1) Surya Constructions vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others : (2019) 16 SCC 794 - Para Nos.2, 3 & 4, (2) Mr. S.C. Meena, EE (Project Narela) vs. Amit Tanwar : 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8035 - Para No.48, (3) Kashmir Wood Products vs Verinag Development Authority and Others : 2021 SCC OnLine J&K 814 - Para No.8, (4) Kattam Reddy Venkateswarlu Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipalities and Urban Development Department and three others : Order dated 23.01.2026 in W.P.No.34418 of 2025 of High Court of Andhra Pradesh) 4. Since the amount deposited by the Writ Petitioner had been withheld by the Corporation for a long time, any further delay on the part of the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 would be viewed seriously by this Court. 5. S. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.S.C. Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Mangalagiri Tadepalli Municipal Corporation, is directed to convey the gist of this Order to Respondent Nos.3 & 4 forthwith for effective compliance. 6. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition stands allowed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 07.04.2026 DSV 4 226 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 8892/2026 07.04.2026 DSV 5 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 8892/2026 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 07.04.2026 GRKP, J Writ Petition is allowed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 6