Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Nakkaladinne Chinna Obayya, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 17 March, 2025

                                  1

APHC010106252025
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                 AT AMARAVATI               [3328]
                          (Special Original Jurisdiction)

               MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH
                  TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

                              PRESENT

   THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
                         PRASAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO: 5673/2025

Between:

  1. NAKKALADINNE CHINNA OBAYYA,, S/O.PEDDAOBELESHU, AGED
     36 YEARS,   R/O. D.NO.3-120, MADIGAPETA,DORNIPADU(PO)
     KUNROOL DISTRICT

                                                     ...PETITIONER

                                 AND

  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
     SECRETARY,    THE    PANCHAYATH  RAJ   DEPARTMENT,
     SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI VILLAGE,  GUNTUR
     DISTRICT.

  2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPLE
     SECRETARY     FINANCE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT
     BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI

  3. THE    COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT   RAJ   AND   RURAL
     DEVELOPMENT, PVS ICON BUILDING, TADEPALLI, GUNTUR
     DISTRICT.

  4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANADYAL, NANDYAL DISTRICT.

  5. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PRI DIVISION,         NANDYAL,
     NANDYAL, DISTRICT

  6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRI (PIU) DIVISION,        NANDYAL,
     NANDYAL, DISTRICT.
                                            2


     7. THE  DORNIPADU    GRAMAPANCHAYATH,                        REP.    BY  ITS
        SECRETARY,    DORNIPADU   VILLAGE                        AND      MANDAL,
        NANDYALDISTRICT.

                                                             ...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

     1. MARELLA RADHA

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

     1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

     2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER:

Heard Ms. Marella Radha, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner, Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri Vidya Sagar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Sudhir Mattegunta, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat.

2. It is noticed that almost in every money claim, the subordinate officers working under the Superintending Engineer, PRI Division, Nandyal (Respondent No.5), are raising technical objections only to delay the process pending before this Court.

3. Whether it is the Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI) or Project Implementation Unit (PIU) Division, this Court is of the opinion that all the divisions are working under the control and supervision of the Superintending Engineer. It appears that the Superintending Engineer is not bestowing his attention on the causes that are being brought before the Court, thereby enabling the Executive Engineers to take hyper-technical pleas that they do not belong to one division or the other.

4. In this view of the matter, the Superintending Engineer is directed to furnish the written instructions as to why the Executive Engineers are taking 3 these pleas instead of addressing the main issue contended in the present Writ Petition.

5. Sri Panku Rajesh Kumar, learned Asistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj is directed to convey the gist of this Order to the Superintending Engineer, Nandyal (Respondent No.5) and the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Respondent No.3) forthwith for effective compliance.

6. List the matter on 04.04.2025.

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Date: 17.03.2025 Note: Issue C.C. by 19.03.2025 B/o DSV