Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6752/2025 of LAKSHMI GANAPATHI RYTHUMITRA GROUP Vs THE STATE OF AP on 28 June 2026
for orders : -------- Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026. Date of uploading : 04-07-2026. APHC010128912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
Date of reserved for orders : --------
Date of pronouncement : 29.06.2026.
Date of uploading : 04-07-2026.
APHC010128912025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 29th DAY OF JUNE 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. LAKSHMI GANAPATHI RYTHUMITRA GROUP, REP. BY ITS
CONVENOR V.KAMALAKAR REDDY S/O JAYA RAMI REDDY, AGED
43 YEARS, R/O MANNUR VILLAGE, BALAYAPALLI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE, STATE OF ANDHRA
PRADESH, NALLAPADU ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, (REGULAR), VENKATAGIRI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT
4. THE MANDAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, BALAYAPALLI MANDAL, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
5. THE DISTRICT COOP CENTRAL BANK, REP. BY ITS BRANCH
MANAGER, VENKATAGIRI, VENKATAGIRI MANDAL, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the subsidy amount of Farm Mechanization (2021-22)
scheme into the 5th respondent bank pertaining to a/c No. 709003206080, even after lapse of more than two years of sanction of the loan, as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and unconstitutional, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G VENKATESWARLU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SIVAPRASAD REDDY VENATI
2. GP FOR AGRICULTURE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer: “....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the respondent authorities in releasing the subsidy amount of Farm Mechanization (2021-22) scheme into the 5th respondent bank pertaining to a/c No. 709003206080, even after lapse of more than two years of sanction of the loan, as being illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and unconstitutional, and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”
2. Heard Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Sandhya Deepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Food and Agriculture for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner has substantially been redressed. He further submits that the balance amount claimed by the petitioner has been released by the respondents and the due amount payable to the petitioner has been paid. In view of the subsequent developments, learned counsel would submit that no further orders are required in the present writ petition.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding release of the amount during the pendency of the writ petition.
5. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount claimed in the writ petition has already been released and that the grievance of the petitioner stands redressed, this Court is of the opinion that no further cause survives for adjudication in the present writ petition.
6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 29.06.2026. UPS
Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
Dt.29.06.2026
UPS