The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition challenging the renewal of an outsourcing contract. The court held that the cause of action no longer existed as the matter had become infructuous.
The Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous without any order as to costs.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 31109 OF 2nifi
Between:
Gadikota Sidda Reddy, Aged about 53 years.
...PETITIONER
AND
...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 the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the in action on the part of the respondents No.2 and 3 in considering the proceedings ini Rc,No,1792/A6/A2 /KGBV/ SSA/2014, dated 31-08-2016 communicated by the respondent No.4 recommending for renewal of the outsourcing 'contract Of the petitioner from 01-09-2016 and the action of the respondent No.4 in insisting the petitioner for production of the renewal of the Outsourcing
Contract to avail the services of its workers as arbitrary, illegal, contrary to the guidelines framed through G.O.Ms.No.151 Finance (HR-l-PIg and Policy) Department, dated 08-08-2016 and violative of the fundamental IT rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 & 21 of the ‘Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to renew the "Outsourcing Contract" awarded in favour of the petitioner through the proceedings No.A2/OS/2014, dated 25-03-2015 for further period as has been requested by the respondent No.4 through the proceedings in Rc.No.993/B2/DCHS/2015, dated 26-08-2016
I.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 (WPMP. NO: 38498 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may be pleased to direct the respondents No.2and3toconsiderthe proceedings in Rc.No.1792/A6/A2/KGBV/SSA/2014, dated 31-08-2016 communicated by the respondent No.4 and take appropriateactiononthe same, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition
I.A. NO: 2 OF 2016 fWPMP. NO: 38499 OF 2016)
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.4 to continue the workers of the petitioner in his institution, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:SRI. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 2 & 3: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: M/S REVANURU SUDHA RANI, SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA
The Court made the following ORDER:
APHC010043882016
m
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3310]
MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 31109/2016
Between;
M/s Praja Chaitanya Seva Sangam, (pcmpc),
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VR REDDY KOWURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FW(AP)
2.GPFOR REVENUE (AP)
3.REVANURU SUDHA RANI (SC FOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA) The Court made the following;
ORDER:
N.Priyanka, learned counsel representing on behalfofMrV.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitsthatthecauseinthewrit petition does not survive and it has become infructuous.
- Recording the above submission, the Writ Petition isdismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stands
closed.
Sd/- B. CHITTI JOSEPH
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
VJ
1
HIGH COURT
DATED:08/07/2024
ORDER
WP.No.31109 of 2016
^ 0 JAN 2025 J
Current Section
^*^!4“esPATC>J§#^
DISMISSING OF THE WP, AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
M/s Praja Chaitanya Seva Sangam
The State of Andhra Pradesh
K Manmadha Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
