When the State releases the amounts claimed for execution of public works during the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court may close the writ as infructuous with no further orders. This reaffirms the established practice that judicial intervention is not warranted when the grievance stands redressed before adjudication, and serves as binding authority for similar situations involving delayed payments by state bodies.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/4175/2023 of VEMULA NAGABHUSHANAM Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh |
| CNR | APHC010083662023 |
| Date of Registration | 20-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | CLOSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | Justice Ravi Cheemalapati |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts subordinate to the Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Type of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | Where the relief sought in a writ petition—here, payment of sums due for execution of public works—has already been granted by the respondent State prior to final adjudication, the High Court may close the petition as infructuous without entering into merits or imposing costs. Judicial intervention is not necessary when the controversy no longer survives. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought mandamus for payment of amounts due for completed road laying works under SDF Funds. During pendency, counsel for petitioner stated amounts had already been paid. The petition was accordingly closed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Andhra Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts hearing similar claims where the main grievance is remedied before hearing |
| Follows | Established principles of writ practice—closure of infructuous petitions where no live issue survives |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that once the primary relief sought—here, release of bill amounts for government contract works—is fulfilled by the State, writ petitions are to be closed as infructuous.
- No costs are ordinarily awarded when the main relief is rendered academic by actions during the pendency.
- No judicial pronouncement is made on merits if grievance stands redressed pre-adjudication; lawyers must be vigilant regarding notification of payment status during writ proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that the State had already paid the claimed bill amounts.
- Since the relief was fully granted and no live issue remained, the Court held the writ had become infructuous and liable for closure.
- No costs were awarded, and all pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed.
- The Court did not address underlying merits, in line with settled writ practice when grievances are resolved during pendency.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The amounts claimed for execution of road laying works, covered by SDF Funds, had been duly paid by the State.
- No further cause of action remained; request for closure of petition.
Respondent
- No arguments recorded in judgment; matter disposed on petitioner’s unilateral submission.
Factual Background
The petitioner had executed four public road laying works in Lingasamudram Village, Dekkili Mandal, under SDF Funds, and approached the High Court seeking mandamus for release of outstanding bill amounts totaling Rs. 3,65,848/-. During pendency of the writ, the State released and paid the claimed amounts. Petitioner’s counsel informed the Court of receipt of payments and sought closure of proceedings.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India was invoked by the petitioner to seek a writ of mandamus for payment of amounts due from the State against completed works.
- No statutory interpretation or discussion of other legal provisions occurred in the judgment, as matter was disposed of on statement of counsel.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural directions or innovations recorded; closure effected per established procedure where cause of action ceases during pendency.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed settled practice that writs are closed as infructuous when the sought relief is fulfilled during pendency.