Dismissed¶30

M/s Rehab Technologies, a proprietary Concern, v. The South Central Railway

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Jul 2025WP/36756/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati; Justice Subba Reddy Satti; W.P.No.36756 of 2013; M/S Rehab Technologies (party-in-person) v. South Central Railway; dismissed for non-prosecution on 09.07.2025 after petitioner absent on 07.07.2025 and again on day of listing under 'for dismissal'; related interim applications under Section 151 CPC closed; underlying challenge concerned Termination Notice B/W. 148/I19457/WA-BR dated 17.09.2013 forfeiting Rs. 3,01,860/- and EMD adjustment of Rs. 46,400/-; Article 226 writ; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Despite the writ petition being listed under the caption 'for dismissal', there was no representation for the petitioner either in the forenoon or in the afternoon, indicating the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. ¶29

M/s Rehab Technologies, a proprietary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

[3331]

¶2

APHC010052532013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 36756/2013

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/S REHAB TECHNOLOGIES, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT FLAT NO.303, HSR ARUTLA RESIDENCY, CHIKKADPALLY, HYDERABAD-500 020, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, P.SRINIVAS REDDY.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, RAIWLAY NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD, REP. BY ITS G.M.,

¶13

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, O/O DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, WORKS BRANCH, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, VIJAYAWADA, REP. BY ITS DIVISONAL ENGINEER/ BRIDGES.

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in issuing Termination Notice No. B/W. 148/I19457/WA-BR dated 17.09.2013 forfeit of amount Rs. 3,01,860/- and adjusting EMD amount of Rs. 46,400/- and rejecting petitioners representation dated 26.09.2013 to revoke the termination notice vide their letter dated 18.10.2013 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and in violation of principles of natural justice and set-aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioners representation dated 26.09.2013 for revocation of termination of contract, and pass appropriate orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.

¶16

SRS,J W.P.No.36756 of 2013

¶17

Page 2 of 3

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 45704 OF 2013

¶19

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 issue an interim direction, directing the Respondents No. 1 and 2 not to call fresh tenders of "Vijayawada Division: Health Monitoring of Bridges" work, pending disposal of the writ petition and to pass.

¶20

IA NO: 4 OF 2013(WPMP 208770 OF 2013

¶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

¶22

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 125518 OF 2014

¶23

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 Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶24

1.PARTY-IN-PERSON

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶26

1.ADHI VENKATESWARA RAO

¶27

The Court made the following order:

¶28

Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed 07.07.2025, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’.

¶29

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.

¶30