Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/20357/2015 of G. KRISHNA MURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM DIST Vs GM(FINANCE) HPCL., VISAKHAPATNAM on 3 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 3459 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.20357 OF 2015 Between: G. Krishna Murthy --- Petitioner and Hindustan Petroleum
APHC010225852015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.20357 OF 2015
Between:
G. Krishna Murthy
---
Petitioner
and
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited, Rep. by its General Manager
(Finance)
---
Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Sri K. Satyanarayana Murthy
Counsel for the Respondent
: Sri Sreekanth Reddy Ambati
&
Sri G. Rama Gopal
The Court made the following:
JS,J
WP No.20357/2015
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, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not releasing payment payable to the petitioner in respect of various works executed by him as mentioned in the representation dt.8-6-2015 as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to conduct enquiry in the presence of petitioner and determine the amount and release amount in favour of petitioner by deleting various amounts included in the name of petitioner, and pass such other …”
2. During the hearing, both the petitioner’s counsel and the Standing Counsel for the respondent-HPCL mutually agreed to dispose of the Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondent within two (2) weeks of receiving this order. The respondent shall then consider it and pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks, duly providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.
3. Accordingly, with the above observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
JS,J WP No.20357/2015
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:04.11.2025 DSH