Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 96 (AP)

L. T. Rama Seethamma v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-01-24

BATTU DEVANAND

body2022
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri Vinod K Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.3 and perused the material available on record. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the native of allagadda, Kurnool District and engaged in Catering and Tailoring business. Respondent No.3 requested to cater the staff, who are organizing training programme to the Village Secretariat functionaries of allagadda Mandal under MPGF on reimbursement basis from 14.10.2019 to 16.11.2019. For that purpose, the petitioner incurred expenditure to a tune of Rs.4,23,855/-. Respondent No.3 wrote a Letter to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kurnool, vide Rc.No.C/42/2019, dated 04.01.2020, with regard to the expenditure pertaining to the Village Secretariat Functionaries Training-2019. The petitioner made several requests to Respondent No.3 to pay the amount due to her. The petitioner borrowed the amount from private finance institutions and she has to pay the interest. Respondent No.3 issued Proceedings on 11.03.2020 to release the amount of Rs.4,23,855/- and credit the same to the account number of the petitioner i.e., CFMSID No.1007461248, marking a copy to the Sub Treasury Officer, allagadda, but the same was not released. Respondent No.2 issued Proceedings on 08.03.2021, permitting all the Mandal Parishad Development Officers to draw the expenditure amount incurred towards the Village Secretariat Functionaries Training Programme from the General Fund. Pursuant to the said proceedings, respondent No.3 issued Proceedings on 17.07.2021, according sanction for an amount of Rs.60,000/- as balance payment to the petitioner. as the respondents are not making payment to the petitioner, having no other option except to approach this Court, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. 3. When this Court has taken up the matter for admission on 20.01.2022, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, on instructions, submitted that on 18.01.2022 itself, the respondents made payment to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the fact of payment and further submitted that the M.P.D.O., i.e., respondent No.3, obtained the signature of the petitioner forcibly on the receipt in which it is stated that payment is made to the petitioner in cash. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner approached allagadda Police Station to make complaint against the concerned Officers for their coercive action, but the police did not respond. 4. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner approached allagadda Police Station to make complaint against the concerned Officers for their coercive action, but the police did not respond. 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court took serious note of the action of respondent No.3 and directed respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to appear before this Court with connected records. 5. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 present before this Court by virtual mode. 6. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that on 21.01.2022 total payment was made to the petitioner through CFMS. Learned counsel for the petitioner also accepted that the amount was credited to the Bank account of the petitioner through CFMS. Learned Government Pleader brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.2 issued order dated 21.01.2022, suspending Respondent No.3 for failure in discharging his duties properly. 7. This Court satisfied that respondent No.2 had acted properly to ventilate the grievance of the petitioner. It is needless to state that appropriate enquiry shall be conducted against respondent No.3 for taking signatures forcibly from the petitioner on the receipt and also placing false instructions before this Court through the Government Pleader. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view, further adjudication in this matter is not required at present, as the petitioner received the total payment. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is closed as no further orders are required. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.