SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN vs The State of Andhra Pradesh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21222

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)

2026:APHC:21420
APHC010008022024
[3504]

WRIT PETITION NO: 597/2024

Between:

1. SHAIK NIZAMUDDIN, S/O. S. MASTHAN, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 10-2, KOTHA KOTA, STREET. FILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

2. K. ARUNA,, W/O. K. VENKATARAMANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC . BUSINESS, R/O. 4-266/1, SUDASUDHIR STREET. FILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

3. K. VENKATRAMANA,, S/O. K. YARRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC . CONTRACTOR, D.NO. 4- 266/1, SUDASUDHIR STREET. FILER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

4. DUDL HARITHA,, W/O. DUDI VENKATRAMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS D.NO.4-41-3, INDIRA NAGAR, FILER, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

5. DUDL VENKATARAMANA,, S/O. DUDL KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. 4- 41-3, INDIRA NAGAR, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

6. ATTAR SONIYA,, C/O. SHAIK MUNEER BASHA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 9-662, RANGA NAYAKULA STREET, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

7. S. MUNEER BASHA,, S/O. S. SALEEM BASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 9-662, RANGA NAYAKULA STREET, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

8. V M APSANA KOUSAR,, C/O. S. ABID, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. 5-150, PATHA MASEEDU VEEDHI, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

9. S. ABID,, S/O. S. MODIN BASHA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. 5-150, PATHA MASEEDU VEEDHI, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

10. MAHASAMUDRAM PRAJWAL KUMAR,, S/O. M. HARI PRASAD REDDY, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, R/O. 0000, CHINTHA PENTA, AMMAGARIPALLE, PILERU, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI.

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT AT RAYACHOTI.

3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

4. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

5. THE DIVISION HEAD, HOUSING, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, RAYACHOTI DIVISION, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT.

6. THE DISTRICT HEAD HOUSING FAC, AP STATE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED, RAYACHOTI DIVISION, ANNAMAIAH DISTRICT

7. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 85 PLANNING, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

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 direction declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of pt and final bill amount of Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- Rs. 4,28,650/- and Rs. 4,28,650/- respectively Totally an amount of Rs. 25,71,900/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 'Land Leveling in APIIC Layout -II Mudupulavemula (ID.No.02174LA002602) Mudupulavemula Grama Panchayat of Jaganna Housing Layout Colony of Filer Mandal, Annamayya District, is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- Rs. 4,28,650/- and Rs. 4,28,650/- respectively Totally an amount of Rs. 25,71,900/- with interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 consider for payment of amount of Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- Rs. 4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- and Rs. 4,28,650/- Totally an amount of Rs. 42,86,500/- respectively even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., “Land Leveling in APIIC Layout - II Mudupulavemula (ID.No.02174LA002602) Mudupulavemula Grama Panchayat of Jaganna Housing Layout Colony of Piler Mandal, Annamayya District, pending disposal of the Writ Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHY R

2. GP FOR REVENUE (AP)

3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP)

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

The Court made the following Order:

Instant Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the following relief:

“.... to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in withholding the payment of pt and final bill amount of Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- Rs. 4,28,650/- and Rs. 4,28,650/- respectively Totally an amount of Rs. 25,71,900/- even after finalizing the bills payable to the petitioner in relation to the works i.e., 'Land Leveling in APIIC Layout -II Mudupulavemula (ID.No.02174LA002602) Mudupulavemula Grama Panchayat of Jaganna Housing Layout Colony of Filer Mandal, Annamayya District, is questioned, as the same is illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider for payment of amount of Rs.4,28,650/-, Rs. 4,28,650/-, Rs.4,28,650/- Rs.4,28,650/- Rs. 4,28,650/- and Rs. 4,28,650/- respectively Totally an amount of Rs. 25,71,900/- with interest @24percent per annum for the delayed amount to the petitioner in respect of execution of above-mentioned work forthwith and pass such other order …”.

2. Sum and substance of the writ petition is that the petitioners challenged the inaction of the respondents in not releasing the amounts, even after completion of the entire works entrusted to them.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the averments made in the writ affidavit, submits that in view of the non-release of the admitted amounts, the petitioners are facing multifarious problems, physically and fiscally. Hence, he submits that the release of the amounts is just and essential.

5. On the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document