The single judge dismissed the writ petition as the grievance ceased to exist after the respondent Corporation decided to withdraw the preferential supply proposal and form a verification committee.
The writ petition is closed; W.P.M.P.Nos.31529 and 31530 of 2013 stand closed in consequence.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.25556 of 2013
Dated: 02.09.2013
Between:
T. Chandrasekhar Reddy, S/o.T.Narayana Reddy, aged 32 years, Proprietor, Suhrutha Minerals, R/o.7/637, Suryanagar, Railway Koduru, Kadapa District and others. …..Petitioners.
And
The A.P.Mineral Development Corporation Limited, (a State owned undertaking), reptd., by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Rear Block, III Floor, H.M.W.S.S.B. Premises, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 050 004 and others. …..Respondents.
The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.25556 of 2013
ORDER :
The petitioners filed this writ petition aggrieved by the action of the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited in proposing to supply barytes in favour of respondents 4 to 22 herein on priority basis.
2. Sri V. Subramanyam, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited, states on instructions that the Board of Directors of the Corporation held a meeting on 06.08.2013 and took a decision to withdraw the proposal to supply barytes on preferential basis to the identified 19 mills in Mangampet village. The Corporation appears to have taken a decision to constitute a committee to verify the functioning of pulverizing mills and evolve a transparent allocation policy.
3. In the light of this development, the grievance of the petitioners no longer survives for consideration.
4. The writ petition is accordingly closed. W.P.M.P.Nos.31529 and 31530 of 2013 shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
___________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J
2nd September, 2013 vhb/bss
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grievance of the petitioner survives given the decisions of the Board of Directors.
Whether to allow the closure of the writ petitions pending on the available material.
T. Chandrasekhar Reddy and others
The A.P. Mineral Development Corporation Limited and others
SANJAY KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
