APHC010596292025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 31391/2025 Between: 1. ANGA LINGAMAIAH, S/O. ANGA SRINIVASA RAO, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.SC STREET, PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2. MERIGA RAMALINGAMAIAH, S/O. MERIGA PEDDA LINGANNA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. ALLAGADDA TULASEESWARA REDY, S/O. ALLAGADDA BALA VEERA REDDY, AGED 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.01, PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. KANDULA VENKATA NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O. KANDULA BUGGA RAMI REDDY, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 5. ALLAGADDA RAJESWARI,, W/O. ALLAGADDA THULASEESWARA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 6. BOLLIPALLI RAMANJANEYULU,, S/O. BOLLIPALLI PUTTAIAH, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 2 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 7. BOLLIPALLI LINGAMMA,, W/O. BOLLIPALLI PULLAIAH, AGED 67 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 8. BOLLIPALLI SUBHASINI,, W/O. BOLLIPALLI RAMANJANEYULU, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O.H.NO.1-85, BC COLONY, PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 9. BOLLIPALLI ANJANAMMA, W/O. BOLLIPALLI RAMA SUBBAIAH, AGED 77 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 10. BOLLIPALLI ADINARAYANA,, S/O. BOLLIPALLI RAMA SUBBAIAH, AGED 40 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 11. ALLAGADDA PUNDARIKAKSHA REDDY,, S/O. ALLAGADDA BALA VEERA REDDY, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 12. MANDATI HARSHA VARDHAN REDDY,, S/O. MANDATI VENKATESWARA REDDY, AGED 25 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 13. MANGALI CHINNA NAGANNA, S/O. MANGALI LINGANNA, AGED 73 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 14. MANGALI VENKATA LINGAMAIAH, S/O. MANGALI CHINNA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.N0.25-446-A-2, SANJEEVA NAGAR, NANDYAL TOWN, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 15. ALLAGADDA PUSHPAVATAMMA, W/O. ALLAGADDA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 16. .MERIGA JAYAMMA, W/O. MERIGA PEDDA LINGANNA, AGED 77 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 17. DIGUVAPATY VISHNUVARDHAN REDDY, S/O. DIGUVAPATY SUBBAREDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 18. .YENUMULA PEDDA VENKATA SUBBA REDDY, S/O. YENUMULA CHINNA SUBBA REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 19. .ALLAGADDA AMARA LINGESWARA REDDY,, S/O. ALLAGADDA LINGA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 20. PALUGU SUBBA RAO, S/O. PALUGU GOPAL, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 21. MERIGE CHINNA LINGANNA,, S/O. MERIGE THIRUPALU, AGED 75 YEARS, OCC-AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 22. MERIGE LEELA KUMAR,, S/O. MERIGE CHINNA LINGANNA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, C/O. MERIGE CHINNA LINGANNA, H.NO.28-1063-1-A-3, SAIBABA NAGAR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT. 23. BURAM RAMA MADDILETI,, S/O. BURAM BALA MADDILETI, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. PASURAPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 24. PALLE ESWARA REDDY,, S/O. PALLE VENKATA PATI REDDY, AGED 75 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.5-32A, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 25. PALLE PAKKIRAMMA,, W/O. PALLE ESWARA REDDY, AGED 70 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.5-32A, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 26. DADI NARASIMHULU,, S/O. DADI RAMAIAH, AGED 78 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.6-52, SC COLONY, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 27. DUDEKULA PEDDA DASTAGIRI,, S/O. DUDEKULA NADIPI KASANNA, AGED 48 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.1- 1, KOTAPADU VILLAGE AND POST, SIRVEL SUB-DISTRICT, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 28. ANAKALA MAHENDRA,, S/O. ANAKALA MANOHAR, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.6-9C, BC COLONY, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 29. DUDEKULA DAVUD HUSSAIN,, S/O. DUDEKULA VENKATAIAH, AGED 32 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.1-38, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 30. GADDAM SATEESH,, S/O. GADDAM KRISHNUDU, AGED 34 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.6-9A, BC COLONY, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 31. BOREDDY SUSEELAMMA,, W/O. BOREDDY SUDHAKARA REDDY, AGED 44 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.3-42, GOSPADU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522020 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT-522020. 5 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT (KURNOOL). 4. THE COMMISSIONER/DIRECTOR, AP CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL OFFICE, SRI SAI TOWERS, ASHOK NAGAR, KANURU, BANDAR ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 5. THE DISTRICT COOPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT (KURNOOL). 6. THE PRIMARY AGRICULTURE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, YALLURU VILLAGE, GOSPADU MANDAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT (KURNOOL). 7. THE MANAGER, DISTRICT CIVIL SUPPLY OFFICER, AP STATE CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED, DISTRICT OFFICE, RS ROAD, NANDYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT (KURNOOL). ...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 a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 7 in not making the payment to the petitioners agriculturists Sorghum bags total 1414.5 quintals supplied by petitioners respectively on the demand made by the 7th respondent total an amount of Rs.47,99,398.5/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and Fifty Paise Only) have to pay to the petitioners by the respondents herein, in spite of petitioners representation dated.06-10-2025 and the Letter No.P2024/01 .Admin, dated.18-10-2025 issued by the 7th respondent giving assurance, payment will be made within 15 days, despite not releasing the payment to the petitioners which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to make the payment of Rs.47,99,398.5/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and Fifty Raise Only) to the petitioners respectively forthwith for 1414.5 quntals of Sorghum bags and pass 6 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 herein to make the payments to the Sorghum bags of Rs.47,99,398.5/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Flundred Ninety Eight and Fifty Raise Only) to the petitioners forthwith for 1414.5 quntals forthwith, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. CHALLA SIVASANKAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI 2. ARUN SHOWRI G 3. MD.SALEEM SC For APSCSC Limited,Vijayawda 4. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES 5. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: 7 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “to issue a Writ, order or directions, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 3 to 7 in not making the payment to the petitioners agriculturists Sorghum bags total 1414.5 quintals supplied by petitioners respectively on the demand made by the 7th respondent total an amount of Rs.47,99,398.5/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and Fifty Paise Only) have to pay to the petitioners by the respondents herein, in spite of petitioners representation dated.06-10-2025 and the Letter No.P2024/01 .Admin, dated.18-10-2025 issued by the 7th respondent giving assurance, payment will be made within 15 days, despite not releasing the payment to the petitioners which is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents herein to make the payment of Rs.47,99,398.5/- (Rupees Forty Seven Lakhs Ninety Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Eight and Fifty Raise Only) to the petitioners respectively forthwith for 1414.5 quntals of Sorghum bags and pass” 2. The petitioners herein are agriculturists in Pasurapadi village and Gospadu village of Nandyal district. The 7th respondent – Manager, District Civil Supplies Officer, through the 6th respondent – Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society Limited, Yalluru village, Gospadu mandal fixed the rate of each quintal of Sorghum including hamali lifting charges as Rs.3,393/-. All the petitioners herein have supplied a total of 1414.5 quintals of Sorghum in 2829 bags of Sorghum, each weighing 51.200 kilograms, to respondent Nos.6 and 7 on 07.05.2025. 8 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that even after a lapse of five months, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not making the payment to the petitioners for the Sorghum bags supplied to them. As such, the petitioners submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent on 06.10.2025, which was forwarded to the 7th respondent, on receipt of which, the 7th respondent vide letter dated 18.10.2025 stated that the details of the sorghum bags have to be uploaded in online and that Sri Shaik Anwar Basha – Chief Executive Officer of the 6th respondent has uploaded the details of the Sorghum bags supplied by the petitioners in the name of other agriculturists; as such, the amount would be released by revoking the money from such agriculturists. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent Nos.6 and 7 in paying the petitioners the amount of Rs.47,99,398.5/-, the present writ petition is filed. 4. The 6th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the petitioners have supplied the Sorghum bags to the 6th respondent during the official procurement period of April, 2025 to June, 2025. In general, the farmers bring their produce to the 6th respondent, who in turn will be given a receipt (truck chit) duly containing the details of the purchase centre, details of the farmers, number of bags, net weight, the registered godowns and the registered vehicle number into which the bags are loaded. Thereafter, once the bags are loaded in to the specified vehicle, they are taken to their respective registered godowns. At the godowns, the weigh bills are generated 9 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 and the same are to be brought to the 6th respondent to update them in the online portal. 5. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the farmers brought a total of 103735 bags out of which, receipts were given only for 102194 bags, as the remaining bags were not in accordance with the required quality and the same was registered by the 7th respondent, but, the 6th respondent gave bills only for 96710 bags and has entered its details in the online portal. It is further stated that details of few farmers, who could not submit their details to the 6th respondent, were entered through other agencies such as DCMS Bandiatmakur, DCMS Sirvel, DCMS Dornipadu, DCMS Allagadda and FPO Gadivemula with the help of the 7th respondent staff. The staff of the 7th respondent are alleged to have unilaterally and improperly processed the payments for other farmers through other procurement agencies. It is further stated that the 6th respondent entered the details of the farmers who approached him before 30.06.2025 and that he has not committed any wrong. 6. The 7th respondent has also filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that though the petitioners brought their produce to the 6th respondent between 07.05.2025 and 12.05.2025, the 6th respondent having accepted the said stock has not generated individual FTOs even after a lapse of 50 days. In order to ensure that the details of petitioners’ stock is entered into online portal, the 6th respondent generated FTOs in the name of other farmers 10 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 through other procurement agencies on 26.05.2025, 29.06.2025 and 30.06.2025, as the closure of procurement operations was fixed as 30.06.2025. 7. It is further stated in the counter affidavit of the 7th respondent that vide letter dated 23.07.2025, the 7th respondent requested all the procuring agencies to depute field level staff to attend the 7th respondent’s office to reconcile with the farmer wise quantity procured and payment status; accordingly, reconciliation procedure was conducted wherein, the 6th respondent stated that a total of 3585 bags of farmers produce procured by him were not entered in online portal due to non-availability of requisite information from the farmers, which includes the petitioners; the 6th respondent further stated that with the apprehension that the portal would be closed, he generated FTOs in the name of other farmers through other District Cooperative Marketing Society and Farmer Producing Organisations on 26.05.2025, 29.06.2025 and 30.06.2025. It was identified that 10 FTOs were generated and 970 bags were procured through DCMS Allagadda, 3 FTOs were generated and 500 bags were procured through DCMS Bandiatmakur, 6 FTOs were generated and 1070 bags were generated through DCMS DOrnipadu, 8 FTOs were generated and 744 bags were procured through DCMS Sirvel, 1 FTO was generated and 98 bags were procured through FPO Nandyal and 1 FTO was generated and 34 bags were procured through FPO 11 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 Gadivemula. Though the aforesaid entries of 3416 bags was made, the stocks were not received at the storage points maintained by the 7th respondent. 8. It is further stated that though the 6th respondent procured a total of 1,00,295 bags from the farmers of Gospadu mandal, he generated FTOs only for 96,710 bags leaving behind 3585 bags. The sole reason for non- processing of payment is the procedural lapses on the part of the 6th respondent. Thus requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Heard Sri. Challa Siva Sankar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. G. Arun Showri, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, Mr. Md. Saleem, learned counsel for the 7th respondent and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies. 10. Perused the entire material available on record. The petitioners, who are agriculturists of Pasurapadi and Gospadu villages, produced and supplied their sorghum during the official procurement period between April and June, 2025 at the procurement centre operated by the 6th respondent, and their produce was duly accepted, weighed and taken into custody as part of the notified procurement process. As per the procedure, once the farmers deliver their produce, the 6th respondent issues truck chits containing details of the farmers, transport the same to the registered godowns, obtain weigh slips, upload the particulars in the online procurement portal and generate individual FTOs so as to enable release of payment by the 7th respondent. In the present 12 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 case, though the petitioners’ produce was admittedly procured by the 6th respondent, the 6th respondent failed to upload the requisite farmer-wise details and generate FTOs in respect of the petitioners’ bags within the prescribed time. Instead, the 6th respondent generated FTOs in the names of other farmers through unrelated District Cooperative Marketing Societies and Farmer Producer Organizations, however, the said stock was not received at the storage points maintained by the 7th respondent. Further, despite being aware that the 6th respondent had not generated individual FTOs for the petitioners and that their produce had been wrongly shown in the names of other farmers through other procuring agencies, the 7th respondent did not take any corrective steps to rectify the portal entries or ensure payment to the petitioners. 11. It can also be observed from the material on record and the counter affidavits that the 7th respondent is aware of information regarding the District Cooperative Marketing Societies and Farmer Producer Organizations through which the 6th respondent generated FTOs in respect of the produce supplied by the petitioners. The 7th respondent is aware of the dates on which such FTOs were generated, the number of bags shown against each DCMS and FPO, and the quantities that were wrongly attributed to other farmers. In such a case, the 7th respondent cannot throw the entire responsibility on the 6th respondent alone. In such a case, this Court is of the opinion that if a detailed 13 VS,J W.P.No.31391 of 2025 enquiry is conducted by the respondents, there is every possibility of identifying the petitioners’ produce and making payments to them, according to the same. 12. In view of the same, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 7th respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter and make the payments to the petitioners as per their entitlement, within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 06.01.2026 Gss