M.Srinivasa Rao, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Education and Welfare Infrastructure

THE ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJIV VIDYA MISSION, OPP:L.B.STADIUM, HYDERABAD.

¶14

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH EDUCATION AND WELFARE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, GUNTUR

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PR CIRCLE, SRIKAKULAM

¶16

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PIU DIVISION, SRIKAKULAM

¶17

THE DIRECTOR OF MINES GEOLOGY, GOVT. OF A.P, BRKR BUILDINGS, TANKBUND ROAD, HYDERABAD.

¶18

THE PAY ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SRIKAKULAM.

¶19

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 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 action of the Respondents and their subordinates in effecting recovery of one time penalty on the

¶21

2

¶22

Seigniorage charges of sand from the work bills of the Petitioner, where permits for sand issued by the Mines Department are not produced and without Notice, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to drop all further proceedings in this regard against the Petitioner

¶23

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 206 OF 2014

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of recovery of one time penalty on seigniorage charges of sand from the work bills payable to the petitioner herein on the ground that he has not produced the permits for sand issued by the Mines Department, pending disposal of the main writ petition

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.A DEEPTHI

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶28

1.GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING

¶29

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

¶30

3.G V S KISHORE KUMAR

¶31

4.GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

¶32

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶33

Despite the writ petition being listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. It seems the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition.

¶34

Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶35

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J

¶37

SPP

¶38

Dated 10.07.2025

¶39

3