Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 22290 (AP)

T. Venkateswarlu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

WP/21698/2021 · 2026-01-01

Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010350732021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21698 of 2021 Between: 1. T. VENKATESWARLU,, S/O. LA KSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 1-12-9/6A, BARAMPET, NARASARAOPET, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 3. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE, GUNTUR. 4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ CIRCLE OFFICE, PIU DIVISION, GUNTUR. 5. THE PAY AND ACCOUNTS, OFFICER,GUNTUR. ...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 declaring inaction of the Respondent No.1 in releasing the funds for payment bill an amount of Rs. Rs.1,37,83,730/- to the work of Providing Road from Nakerikallu to Gurajala R and B Road at 35/0 to Miriyala in Karempudi Mandal under the Agreement dated 10-08-2018 is illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith pay an amount of 2 Rs.1,37,83,730/- the bill payable to the petitioner for the work executed by them under the scheme of NREGS. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KANADHI BHATLA SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: Though the matter is listed under the caption “For Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It evinces that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the case. Therefore, the present Writ Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 02.01.2026 Siva/CMK 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.21698 of 2021 Date: 02.01.2026 Siva/CMK