APHC010283172023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 14494/2023 Between: 1. GUBBALA SATHIBABU, S/O G GADDIYYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 1-86, GUTHULAVARIPALEM, NEMAM, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, D-NO.12-47, P.V.S. ICON, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, , M.P.P. KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). Page 2 of 4 5. THE MANDAL ENGINEERING OFFICER, M.P.P. KAKINADA (R) MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT, KAKINADA (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 7. THE NEMAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KAKINADA RURAL MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. (EARLIER EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT). 8. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI. ...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, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declaring the inaction on the part of the respondents herein not releasing and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.5,95,550/- with interest to the petitioner under the grant of M.P.G.F 2016-17 for execution of works as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentially direct the respondents to release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.5,95,550/- with interest to the petitioner forthwith under the grant of M.P.G.F 2016- 17, 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 release and pay the bill amounts worth of Rs.5,95,550/- with interest to the petitioner forthwith under the grant of M.P.G.F 2016-17, pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: p. 3 1. BOKKA SATYANARAYANA KAMLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: ORDER Heard Sri B. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development & Finance and Planning Department, for the respondents 1, 2, 3, 5 & 6, and Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents 4 & 7. 2. The above writ petition was filed to declare the action of respondents in not releasing an amount of Rs.5,95,550/-, in relation to the execution of work „providing amenities to the Community Hall‟ in Elvinpet at Nemam Sivaru, Kakinada Rural Mandal, as illegal and arbitrary. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed M-Book relating to the said works. 3. In Paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the petitioner also mentioned another work for „providing Wood Work, Paintings and Electrification to Community Hall‟ in Elvinpet at Nemam Sivaru, Kakinada Rural Mandal under the grant of MPGF 2016-17. However, no material was annexed along with the writ petition relating to the said work. 4. On 27.01.2026, this Court directed the learned Mandal Parishad Development Officer-4th respondent to appear before the Court along with the entire record. Page 4 of 4 5. Today Sri Satish, 4th respondent-MPDO, is present and assisted this Court. In fact, in relation to the work “Improvements to Community Hall”, the amount was paid to the petitioner. 6. Sri B.Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner, endorses payment of the amount. 7. In respect of the second work, since no material has been placed before this Court, this Court is not going adjudicate the same. It is open to the petitioner to make claim, if the amount is not paid, by way of filing separate writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is Closed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD