WP/22012/2025 of KONETI SHANKARAMMA Vs THE STATE OF AP on 4 January 2026

1. KONETI SHANKARAMMA, W/O NARAIIIMHULU AGED 30 YEARS, OCC PROPRIETOR OF SRI OM GANAPATHI TRANSPORT R/O SRINIVASAPURAM AMINAPALLI VILLAGE

GURRAMKONDA MANDAL ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT AP

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF AP, REP BY PRI SECRETARY INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, ANDHRA PRADESH VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT NOW ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT RAYACHOTI, 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 or writs more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the investment subsidy sanctioned vide letter No ISI 2000051 dt 8-9-2021 to the petitioner even after long lapse of time is illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, discriminatory and cannot be justified in the eye of law and consequently direct the respondents to release the investment subsidy to the petitioner in the interest of justice and pass 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 to direct the respondents to release the investment subsidy of Rs 3,46,495/- to the petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. CH SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR INDUSTRIES COMMERCE The Court made the following Order:

Heard Sri CH. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries Commerce appearing for the respondents.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is against the non payment of Investment subsidies in terms of the G.O.Ms.Nos.108 & 36 which has already been sanctioned for purchase of tractor and trailer by the respondent No.2.

3. It is contended that pursuant to the sanction orders of the respondent No.2, the petitioner has obtained loan from Kotak Mahendra bank for purchase of the subject vehicles. However, the respondents have not so far released the investment subsidy of Rs.3,46,495/- as granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the respondent No.3 has issued proceedings, dated 08.09.2021 stating that the said sum has already been sanctioned, however the same would be released as and when the petitioner’s turn would come. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been four years, since the date of sanction of the subsidy however the respondents have not issued further proceedings for release of the said sum.

5. Having regard to the contentions advanced, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to pass appropriate orders for release of the said amount sanctioned vide proceedings, dated 08.09.2021 within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Date: 05.01.2026 MSI

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 22012/2025

Date: 05.01.2026 MSI