Writ petition filed by an authorized person challenging the deduction of EMD and maintenance money by respondents. The petitioner failed to appear to prosecute the petition after departmental notice.
Dismissal of Writ Petition No. 35890 of 2012 for non-prosecution.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATU.?-"^-^ fSoecial (Special Orininal Original .lnrieriinfinnl Jurisdiction) . WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST F’i' l! TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ■W
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA^^'
WRIT PETITION NO: 35890 OF 2012
Between:
Authorized person S. Madhusdhana Rao, ^9®^ about 38, Occ: Private Service, Registered office at 3-457, Lakshmipuram, Nellore.
...PETmONER
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in iShhowIZ mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in payable to the petitioner covered under EMD and ® towards maintenance from running bills of the. petitioner in respect Package No. HNSS PHASE-11/20, as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to immediately release payable to the petitioner covered under EMD and retention amounts, in respect of Package No. HNSS PHASE-ll/20 i.« Investigation, Design & Drawings, Excavation and Construction of Tunnel in complete shape on HNSS 506.000 to Km 511.100 under phase- II, the duly providing approaches of 150 Mts on both sides. °
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(WPIVIP. NO: 45631 OF 20121
statPdb?hS" CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances 'n support of the writ petition, the High Court may-be frnm interim directions to the respondents not to deduct 1% amounts from the running bills of the petitioner towards maintenance in respect of the
and Cons?rurt?nn®nf Investigation, Design & Drawings, Excavation 508 MO Km 811^^0 “"'P'®® «’®p® HNSS Main Canal from Km '”'®®®’ "■ ‘''® providing approaches of 150 Mts on both sides pending disposal of the writ petition.
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2012fWPMP. NO: 46531 OF 20121
stated *P'®y'"9 '’®' i" ‘h® circumstances I i ®ff'.‘iP''it filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be to permit the petitioner to incorporate name of the writ petitioner as AKR Avantika - Sai Venkata Engineering (JV) and cuniraciors Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3: GP FOR IRRIGATION & COMM AREA Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: GP FOR FINANCE & PLANNING The Court made the following: ORDER
™e HOW'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU WlMMAOAnnA
WRIT PETITOW NQ.35890 OF 2012
ORD^:
On 01.08.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, the matter was posted to today under the caption Tor dismissal’. Even today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. This indicates that the petitioner herein has no interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending
shall stand closed.
SD/- G. HELA NAIDU ASSISTANlf REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// sec’ To, N OFFICER 1. One CC to SRI. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Advocate [OPUC] 2. pSd^Th AR£ACEV, High Court Of 3. 4. Two CD &,pfes ''"^ANCE & PLANNING Advocate [OPUC] csb
/
HIGH COURT
DATED:02/08/2023
ORDER
WP.No.35890 of 2012
5 3 0 SEP zuzj g ^^S^PATCVV^J^
DISMISSING THE WP FOR NON PROSECUTION
S. Madhusdhana Rao
The State of Andhra Pradesh
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
