SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20489

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
SRI SAI GOPI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
WP 29570/2025



APHC010570672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI WRIT PETITION NO: 29570/2025 Between:

1. S RI SAI GOPI KRISHNA CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER M CHANDRASEKHARARAO, S/O. M SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC-CONTRACTOR, R/O.5-52, VADLAMURU, PEDDAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, PINCODE- 533437.

...PETITIONER AND

1. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

2. T HE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

3. T HE COMMISSIONER, PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, NH16 SERVICE ROAD, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

4. T HE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

5. T HE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

6. T HE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PR (PIU) DIVISION, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT.

7. T HE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AP CFMS OFFICE, 6TH FLOOR, C-BLOCK, ANJANEYA TOWERS, IBRAHIMPATNAM, KRISHNA 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 topleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the Respondents not releasing the amount of Rs.10,33,919/- vide M Book No. 19A/2010-2011 and CFMS No. 2023-1577432, even after finalizing the bills, payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., Construction of bridge at l/o 100 km on road from Dhanyampalem to Metlapalem under RDF 2016-17 Scheme, vide Agreement No. /2018-19, dated 28.05.2018 is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs.10,33,919/- vide M Book No. 19A/2010-2011 and CFMS No. 2023-1577432 with interest @24percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above- mentioned work forthwith 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 Please to direct the respondents to pay for payment of amount of Rs. 10,33,919/- vide M Book No. 19A/2010-2011 85 CFMS No. 2023-1577432 with interest @24percentage per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of works i.e. Construction of bridge at l/o 100 km on road from Dhanyampalem to Metlapalem under RDF 2016-17 Scheme, vide Agreement No. /2018-19, dated 28.05.2018, forthwith, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. MODAPOTHULA SUMALATHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following:

ORDER

Aggrieved by non-payment of bill amount to the petitioner for the works executed under Agreement No.Nil/2018-19, dated

28.05.2018, the present writ petition is filed.

2. Heard Ms. Modapothula Sumalatha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Naga Chandrika, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader, on written instructions dated 04.12.2025, submitted that as against the claim made by the petitioner for an amount of Rs.10,33,919/-, after statutory deductions, the petitioner is entitled only to Rs.8,94,682/- and sought twelve (12) weeks time for making such payment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner reported no objection to the said submission.

5. Taking into consideration the submissions of both the learned counsel and as the authorities are ready to pay the amount to the petitioner, this court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition, at the admission stage with th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top