Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/14117/2025 of Vasudhaika Agritech Pvt Ltd, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 23 June 2026
for orders : ----------- Date of pronouncement : 24-06-2026 Date of uploading : 04-07-2026 APHC010238612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR
Date of reserved for orders
: -----------
Date of pronouncement
: 24-06-2026
Date of uploading
: 04-07-2026
APHC010238612025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
Between:
1. VASUDHAIKA AGRITECH PVT LTD,, REP BY ITS C.E.O., D.NO.
PLOT NO. 3, D.NO. 12-2015/2, TADEPALLI MUNICIPALITY, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, M. NO. 9154184618.
2. VALLABHANENI SRINIVAS CHARKRAVARTHY, S/O. V RAMA RAO, D.NO.406, R K APARTMENTS, K C ROAD, OPP. ANDHRA BANK, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, BELLARY - 583101, KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY,
AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT
BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI AT AMARAVATHI, ANDHRA PRADESH.
2. THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ANDHRA
PRADESH, GUNTUR.
3. THE DISTRICT AGRICULTURE OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, COLLECTOR
OFFICE
COMPLEX,
SRIKAKULAM,
ANDHRA
PRADESH.
4. THE
ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR
OF
AGRICULTURE,
NARASANNAPETA,SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
5. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, NARASANI
IAPETA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
6. THE
AGRICULTURE
OFFICER,
AGRICULTURE
OFFICE,
SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH.
7. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE OFFICE, JALUMURU
MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.
...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or more particularly Writ of mandamus that declaring the action of the Respondents for not releasing the balance amount of Rs. 28,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine only) towards the tarpaulins supplied as per the invoices mentioned above is illegal, arbitrary, contrary and violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14, 300 (A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine only) along with applicable interest and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. S MURALI MOHAN
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. 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 a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or more particularly Writ of mandamus that declaring the action of the Respondents for not releasing the balance amount of Rs. 28,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine only) towards the tarpaulins supplied as per the invoices mentioned above is illegal, arbitrary, contrary and violation of fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 14, 300 (A) of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to pay the balance amount of Rs.28,31,579/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Thirty One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Nine only) along with applicable interest…”
2. Heard Sri S.Murali Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. M. Sandhya Deepthi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Food and Agriculture for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that during pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners has substantially been redressed. He further submits that the balance amount claimed by the petitioners has been released by the respondents and the due amount payable to the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners that the amount claimed in the writ petition has already been released and that the grievance of the petitioners 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: 24.06.2026. UPS
Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned
Reportable
Non-reportable ☑
Dt.24.06.2026
UPS