The High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution after noting the petitioner's absence and lack of representation on subsequent hearing dates.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13573 of 2003
Between:
J.V.R.KISHORE BABU S/OL.CHITTI BABU R/O.6-6-440/1, GANDHINAGAR, SECUNDERABAD.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 THE A.P.STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION REP.BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, WARE HOUSING SADAN BEHIND GANDHI BHAVAN, NAMPALLY, HYDERRABAD.
2 A.N.MOHANTHY S/O.AND AGED NOT KNWON TO PETITIONER BEHIND GANDHI BHAVAN NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD. 3 SRI P.S.PATHASARATHY S/O.AND AGED OT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER R/O.FLAT.NO.608,6TH FLOOR, AMARCHAND SHARMA COMPLEX, SAROJINIDEVI ROAD SECUNDERABAD.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of respondent nO1 awarding the contract of constructing godowns and allowing respondent No3 to construct godowns inSy.No.151,153/11,154, 227,151/3 instead of Sy.No.235, 236, 237, 238 Nadipahad village by respondent No3 in pursuance to tender notification No.SCN/CS2/0422/CONST/PVT PARTIES/2000-2001 dt.10.12.2001 as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent No1 to issue fresh notification for construction of Godown for construction of Godown at Miryalguda or pass other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.JAGADISHWAR REDDY
Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.V.MEENAKSHI
The Court made the following :
O R D E R :
When this writ petition came up for hearing on 01.07.2009, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, it was directed to be listed on 02.07.2009 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Despite the matter being listed under the caption ‘for dismissal’ on this day, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It indicates that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J.
Date:02nd July, 2009.
cs
..... ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
// TRUE COPY //
SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2. 2CD copies
Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI}
J.V.R.KISHORE BABU
A.P. STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION
A.N. MOHANTHY
SRI P.S. PATHASARATHY
B. SESHASAYANA REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
