Andhra Pradesh High Court

WP/15639/2025 of J VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 12 November 2025

Cites 0, Cited by 0

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 15639 OF 2025 Between: 1. J VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O.GOVINDA REDDY, AGED

APHC010306732025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

PRESENT

Between:

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. J VENKATA NARAYANA REDDY, S/O.GOVINDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.D.NO.2-71, CHAPIREVULA VILLAGE, NANDYAL MANDAL, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ENDOWMENTS, SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI,GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. THE COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, GOLLAPUDI, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT.

3. THE REGIONAL JOINT COMMISSIONER, ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, MULTI ZONE-II, NEW BALAJI NAGAR, TIRUPATI- 517501.

4. SRI MAHANANDEESWARA SWAMY VANI DEVASTHANAM, MAHANANDI, NANDYAL DISTRICT, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, MZ-II.

5. SRI MAHANANDEESWARA SWAMY VANI DEVASTHANAM, MAHANANDI, NANDYAL DISTRICT, REP BY ITS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ENDOWMENT DEPARTMENT, MZ-II.

...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 Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent authorities in withholding the payment of Rs.14,58,465/- even after finalizing the bill total amount, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Providing CC Road between Mada Street and Gajulapalle Road in SMES Devastanam, Mahanandi, Nandyal District vide Agreement No.19/E.0/2023, Dt26.12.2023 in M. Book No.1/2024 for the bill amount of Rs.7,96,240/- and Construction of Culvert between Mada Street and Gajulapalle Road in SMES Devasthanam, Mahanandi, Nandyal District vide Agreement No.18/E.0/2023, Dt26.12.2023 in M.Book No.2/2024 for the bill amount of Rs.6,62,225/- in Endowment Grant for the various works in Sri Sri Mahanandeeswara Swamy Vani Devasthanam, Mahanandi, Nandyal District through the Agreements as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent authorities to release the pending bills of Rs.14,58,465/- with interest at 18percent for the pending bills forthwith for the above said works executed by the petitioner 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 pleased to direct respondents to consider for pending bills of Rs.14,58,465/- with interest @ 18 % for the works executed by the petitioner for the various works in Sri Mahanandeeswara Swamy Vani Devasthanam, Mahanandi, Nandyal District in Endowment Grant, through the Agreements forthwith, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. ANNAMNEEDI BALAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. T VENU GOPAL SC FOR ENDOWMENTS (RAYALASEEMA REGION)

2. GP FOR ENDOWMENTS

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri Rama Koteswarao, learned counsel appearing for Sri Annamneedi Balakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri T.Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amounts claimed by the petitioner have been remitted by the respondents. Therefore, the issue raised in the writ petition does not survive and states no further orders are required to be passed.

3. Sri T. Venu Gopal, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, has placed before the Court a copy of the instructions received from the 5th respondent.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as the grievance of the petitioner is resolved. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 13.11.2025 BSK

Date: 13.11.2025 BSK

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead