Dismissed

M/s. Prompt Electrical Works, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Sept 2026WP/22189/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners, two electrical works firms, challenged the respondents' decision to allow a Class III contractor to participate in tenders and receive allotment of transformer repair works across eight districts, alleging violations of constitutional rights and contractor registration rules. The petition became infructuous as the cause of action no longer survived, leading to dismissal without costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

M/s. Prompt Electrical Works, Vs The… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

¶1

APHC010186112016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 22189 OF 2016

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. Prompt Electrical Works,, Rep by its Proprietor, P. Muni Kumar S/o. Late Sri P. Bala Munaiah, aged about 53 years R/o. Door No. 38/168-2C, Chinna Chowk, Kadapa YSR Kadapa District

¶10

M/s. Sri Lakshmi Venkateswara Electrical Works, Rep by its Proprietor, G. Amarnath Reddy S/o. G. Sekhar Reddy, aged about 43 years, R/o. Door No. 21/372, V.S.M. Street Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District

¶11

...Petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh rep by its Principal Secretary, Energy Department AP Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶14

Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd, Tirupathi, Rep by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶15

The Chief General Manager PMMIPCCIVIL, APSPDCL, Tirupathi, Chittoor District

¶16

The Superintendent Engineer Operations, A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District

¶17

¶18

M/s Sri Vasavi Electricals, Rep by its Prop. V.S. Subbarayadu, R/o. D No. 90/200, NR Mattam, Mamilla Palli village, CK Dinne Mandala Kadapa District 501 6004

¶19

...Respondents

¶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 toto issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 2 to 4 in permitting the 5th respondent (Class Ill Contractor) for participating the tenders and allotting the works 'Repairs of Distribution of Transformers at Vijayawada, Guntur, Ongole, Nellore, Tirupathi, Kadapa, Ananthapur and Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 of Constitution of India and also contrary to the Rules of the Registration of Contractors and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 4 not to-grant any Repairs of Distribution Transformers works in favour of the 5th respondent (Class III Contractor) in Vijayawada, Guntur, Ongole, Nellore, Tirupathi, Kadapa, Ananthapur and Kurnool District of the Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Tirupathi and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

¶21

IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 27281 OF 2016

¶22

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 2 to 4 not to grant any Repairs of Distribution Transformers works in favour of the 5th respondent (Class Ill Contractor) in Vijayawada, Guntur, Ongole, Nellore, Tirupathi, Kadapa, Ananthapur and Kurnool District of the Southern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd., Tirupathis, pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners: Y VENKATASATYAM

¶24

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENERGY (AP) Counsel for the Respondents:Venkata Rama Rao Kota SC FOR APSPDCL Counsel for the Respondents:JAGARLAMUDIKOTESWARIDEVI(SC FORAPSPDCL) Counsel for the Respondents:KARRI MURALI KRISHNA

¶26

The Court made the following order:

¶27

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO: 22189 OF 2016

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

Heard Sri Y.Nagendra Babu, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶32

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Sri Y.Nagendra Babu, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the cause in the present writ petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

11.09.2026 BSP

¶36

__________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

¶37

¶38

¶39

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶40

WRIT PETITION NO: 22189 OF 2016

¶41

11.09.2026 BSP

M/s. Prompt Electrical Works, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Prompt Electrical Works, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary

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