Dismissed

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

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Sept 2026WP/14525/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the award of a one-year contract for outsourcing CSC operation and maintenance to the fourth respondent, alleging arbitrariness in not framing selection guidelines and ignoring the petitioner's lowest quotation despite 11 years of experience. The respondents submitted that the contract period (01.05.2014 to 31.03.2015) had already elapsed, rendering the petition infructuous. The court agreed and dismissed the writ petition as infructuous with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as infructuous; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

M. Satyanarayana, Vs The Superintending… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010555962014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 14525 OF 2014

¶8

Between:

¶9

M. Satyanarayana,, S/o Gurunatham Aged ; 49yrs, Occ: Business R/o 1745-A1, Park road Nandyal Kurnool Dist.,

¶10

...Petitioner

¶11

AND

¶12

The Superintending Engineer Operation, APCPDCL, Vidyut Bhavan, Kurnool

¶13

The Asst Divisional Engineer OCC, Sub-Division, Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.,

¶14

The Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd, Rept. By its Chief General Manager (O&M) Hyderabad

¶15

M/s KM Agriculture Contractor, H.No. 6-100, Bandi Atmakur Village & Mandal Kurnool District Rept., by its Proprietor, M.Phani Bhushan Rao

¶16

...Respondents

¶17

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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus. to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings vide Lr.No. SE/O/KNL/T.SBE.-

¶18

¶19

1/D.NO.167, dt. 26-04-2014 accepting the quotation offered by the 4th respondent for the 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 without framing any guidelines for selecting the contractor and not considering the petitioner even though the petitioner quoted the lowest rate and having 11 years of experience as arbitrary, illegal and consequently set aside the vide Lr.No. SE/O/KNL/T.SBE.-1/D.NO.167, dt. 2604-2014 issued by the 1st respondent in the interest of justice and to grant

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 18042 OF 2014

¶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 suspend the impugned proceedings vide Lr.No. SE/O/KNL/T.SBE.1/D.No.167, dt. 26-04-2014 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the Writ Petition

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: P NAGENDRA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL

¶24

The Court made the following order:

¶25

¶26

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO: 14525 OF 2014

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶30

The present Writ Petition is filed declaring the action of the 1^st respondent in issuing impugned proceedings dated 26.04.2014 accepting the quotation offered by the respondent No.4 for the work of outsourcing of CSC on contract basis for operation and maintenance in respect of OCC Sub-Division, Nandyal for a period of one year without framing any guidelines for selecting the contractor and not considering the petitioner even though the petitioner quoted lowest rate as illegal and arbitrary.

¶31

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the proposed tender/contract is only for a period of one year i.e., 01.05.2014 to 31.03.2015 and said period was already elapsed. Hence, cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and requested to close the writ petition.

¶32

Since the period of tender/contract is completed by 31.03.2015 itself, no cause survives for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.

¶33

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶36

closed.

¶37

__________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

10.09.2026 BSP

133

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶42

WRIT PETITION NO: 14525 OF 2014

¶43

10.09.2026 BSP

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases