The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction firm as infructuous because the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication.
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)
WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6286 of 2005
Between:
M/s. Krishna Constructions, H.No. 2-7-10, Excise Colony, Hanamakonda, Warangal District, Rep. by its Managing Partner R. Jagdish Chander Reddy
PETITIONER
AND
1 Chief Engineer, R.W.S. Panchayat Raj Department, SRNT Bhavan, Erra Manzil, Hyderabad. 2 Superintendng Engineer, R.W.S. Panchayat Raj Department, Warangal.
3 Engineer-in-Chief (A.W) Irrigation and Communal Area Development, jalanilayam, Erra Manzil, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Kaveri Polymers, H.No. 1-8-107, Balasamudram, Hanamakonda, Warangal District, Rep. by its Managing Partner P. Venkateshwar Reddy. 5 Ch. Charma Reddy, Special Class Contractor, H.No. 11-23, 2090/1, Ganeshnagatr, Deshaipet Road, Warangal.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus i) declaring the action of the respondent authorities in trying to consider the tenders of respondents 4 and 5 while refusing to accept the tender of the petitioner -firm as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India; ii) to direct the respondent authorities to forfeit the registration of the fourth respondent -firm and debar the fourth respondent firm from tendering works and pass such other further order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.
The Court made the following :
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION No : 6286 of 2005
O R D E R :
It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
______________ G. ROHINI, J
Dated: 04-02-2009 KLP
M/s. Krishna Constructions
Chief Engineer, R.W.S. Panchayat Raj Department
Superintendng Engineer, R.W.S. Panchayat Raj Department, Warangal
Engineer-in-Chief (A.W) Irrigation and Communal Area Development
M/s. Kaveri Polymers
Ch. Charma Reddy
G. ROHINI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
