Dismissed¶32

M/s.Raghavendra Ferro Alloys Limited, v. Rashtriya Ispt Nigam Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Dec 2025WP/28238/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition dismissed; counsel not ready to argue; Article 226; bank guarantee forfeiture Rs. 37.50 lakhs; reverse e-auction hold; Silicon Manganese; Tender Notification 08.04.2011; Tender Notification 06.01.2015; Rashtriya ISPT Nigam Limited Visakhapatnam Steel Plant; Raghavendra Ferro Alloys Limited; Justice Sumathi Jagadam; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; 10.12.2025; no order as to costs; IA No. 1 of 2015 WPMP 36619 of 2015 closed; no merits adjudication

What did the court decide?

Finding of non-prosecution: when the matter was called, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not ready to argue, and it appeared that the learned counsel for the petitioner was not interested to prosecute the case. ¶31

M/s.Raghavendra Ferro Alloys Limited, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in imposing penalties - (i) forfeiture of the petitioner's bank guarantee of Rs. 37.50 lakhs (Tender Notification dated 08.04.2011) and (ii) keeping the petitioner under hold for the 3rd and 6th Reverse e-Auctions/Cycles for Silicon Manganese supplies (Tender Notification dated 06.01.2015) - is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational, opposed to the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India (as raised in the petition; not adjudicated, the matter being dismissed for non-prosecution).

¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶31

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution, with no order as to costs.ratio¶32
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Smt Justice Sumathi Jagadam, 10.12.2025) dismissed Writ Petition No. 28238 of 2015 filed by M/s. Raghavendra Ferro Alloys Limited under Article 226 of the Constitution, which had challenged the action of Rashtriya ISPT Nigam Limited, Visakhapatnam Steel Plant in imposing penalties - forfeiture of a bank guarantee of Rs. 37.50 lakhs (Tender Notification dated 08.04.2011) and keeping the petitioner under hold for the 3rd and 6th Reverse e-Auctions/Cycles for Silicon Manganese supplies (Tender Notification dated 06.01.2015) - as alleged violations of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21, 265 and 300-A. The petition was dismissed as non-prosecution, the petitioner's counsel having been repeatedly unready to proceed with arguments (adjourned on 12.11.2025 and 03.12.2025) and appearing not interested to prosecute the case; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications (including IA No. 1 of 2015 / WPMP No. 36619 of 2015) stood closed. No adjudication on merits.

¶1

APHC010020862015

¶2

[3459]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28238/2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S.RAGHAVENDRA FERRO ALLOYS LIMITED,, (SERVICE CONNECTION BEARING NO. NGL-504) SY.NO. 709 TO 713 & 716 AITIPAMULA VILLAGE, KATTANGUR MANDAL, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE. REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, K. SRINIVAS REDDY,

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

RASHTRIYA ISPT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 031.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MM, RASHTRIYA ISPT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 031.

¶14

THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER MM, RASHTRIYA ISPT NIGAM LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM-530 031.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶16

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 toto issue a writ or order of direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing penalties of (i) forfeiture of bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 37.50

¶17

¶18

JS, J W.P.No.28238/2015

¶19

lakhs in the context of Tender Notification dated 08.04.2011 and (ii) keeping the petitioner under hold for 3rd and 6th Reverse e-Auctions /Cycles in respect of Silicon Manganese supplies in the context of Tender Notification dated 06.01.2015 as ohighly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, irrational opposed to the Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 20, 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 36619 OF 2015

¶21

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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the ensuing 3rd and 6th Reverse e-Auctions / Cycles for the supply of Silicon Manganese pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 06.01.2015 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.KIRAN TIRUMALASETTI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.K SARVA BHOUMA RAO

¶26

2.V RAVINDER

¶27

¶28

JS, J W.P.No.28238/2015

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶30

Though the matter was adjourned on 12.11.2025 and 03.12.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not ready to proceed with arguments. Hence, the matter was listed today.

¶31

Even today when the matter is called, learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready to argue the matter. It appears that the learned counsel for the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

¶32

Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed as non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶33

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶34

__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶35

Date: 10.12.2025 rsd

¶36

¶37

JS, J W.P.No.28238/2015

¶38