M. Satyanarayana, v. The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Apcpdcl

Andhra Pradesh HC1 Dec 2025WP/14299/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Infructuous disposal of 2014 writ petition (W.P. No. 14299/2014; APHC010205632014) by Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati, on 02.12.2025; challenge to Tender Notification No.180/13-14 of Superintending Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL, Kurnool for outsourcing of CSC operation and maintenance, OCC Sub-Division, Nandyal; prayer for writ of mandamus to frame and disclose tender selection points; no representation by petitioner; no interim order during pendency; no costs; interlocutory applications closed; no statutes or precedents discussed.

What did the court decide?

The extract of the prayer shows the petitioner had challenged Tender Notification No.180/13-14, and the cause in the writ petition does not survive. ¶¶29

M. Satyanarayana, Vs The Superintending Engineer (Operation) Apcpdcl — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶¶30

Issue for consideration

As prayed by the petitioner (and not adjudicated): whether the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Tender Notification No.180/13-14 without framing points for consideration in selecting the contractor, when several valid tenders were filed for outsourcing of CSC operation and maintenance of the (OCC) Sub-Division, Nandyal, was arbitrary and illegal, warranting a mandamus to frame, disclose and apply selection points and finalise the tenders. +1 more

¶¶27

Ratio / Principle

The extract of the prayer shows the petitioner had challenged Tender Notification No.180/13-14, and the cause in the writ petition does not survive.

¶¶29

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous, with no order as to costs.ratio¶¶30
Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.ratio¶¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), single Bench (Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad, J.), by oral order dated 02.12.2025 disposed of Writ Petition No. 14299 of 2014 as having become infructuous. The 2014 petition, filed by M. Satyanarayana, had challenged Tender Notification No.180/13-14 issued by the Superintending Engineer (Operation), APCPDCL, Kurnool, for allotment of the contract work of outsourcing of CSC on work contract basis for operation and maintenance of the (OCC) Sub-Division, Nandyal for one year, contending that the notification was issued without framing points for consideration despite several valid tenders, and sought a writ of mandamus directing framing and disclosure of selection points and finalisation of tenders. On the hearing date there was no representation for the petitioner; the Court heard the Junior Standing Counsel for APSPDCL, noted that the petition had been listed twice in 2014 (29.04.2014 and 08.05.2014) with no interim order passed, found from the prayer itself that the cause did not survive, and disposed of the petition as infructuous with no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, stood closed in terms of the order. No statute or precedent was cited.

¶1

¶2

APHC010205632014

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3328]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 14299/2014

¶9

Between:

¶10

M. SATYANARAYANA, S/O GURUNATHAM AGED ; 49 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O 17-45-A1, PARK ROAD NANDYAL KURNOOL DIST.,

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (OPERATION) APCPDCL, VIDYUT BHAVAN, KURNOOL.,

¶14

THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (OCC) SUBDIVISION, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DIST.,

¶15

THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LTD., REPT. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (O&M) HYDERABAD.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

¶23

ORAL ORDER:

¶24

No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner.

¶25

Heard Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL.

¶26

The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under:

¶27

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing Tender Notification No.180/13-14, without framing the points for consideration in selecting the contractor when there are several valid tenders filed for allotment of contract work of outsourcing of CSC on work contract basis for operation and maintenance in respect of (OCC) Sub-Division, Nandyal for a period of one year as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to frame the points for selecting the tenderer and finalise the tenders after disclosing the points for consideration to all the tenderers in the interest of justice and to grant such other necessary relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶28

This Writ Petition is of the year 2014 and it was listed on two earlier occasions (29.04.2014 & 08.05.2014). There is no Interim Order passed by this Court.

¶29

The above extract of the prayer itself would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has challenged the Tender Notification No.180/13-14. The above extract would clearly indicate that the cause does not survive.

¶30