Dismissed

M/s. Printwell, represented by its Proprietor v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development

Telangana HC12 Apr 2023WP/11966/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge of the High Court of Telangana dismissed the writ petition filed by M/s. Printwell challenging the forfeiture of security deposit and blacklisting by the respondent corporation, due to the petitioner's non-prosecution despite listing for dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs.

M/s. Printwell, represented by its… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

1321e 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA . ATHYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶6

wRr T PETITION NO : 11966 OF 2009

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Printwell, represented. .by_ its proprietor, Mr.K.Sreenivasura Reddv s/o. RamiReddy,DooiNo.+-9t/t',eiramabLdi.-L.e.N,d,i,-i';i;#

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Deveropment, corporation Limited. represented by its Vice chairman and Mahaoing orreicioi' s- i o-i s'3-,-Hncn Bhavan, Opp:^public Gardens, Hyderabad. "

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of the respondent corporation contarned in its order No.sSDC/P&A/PUR/Skg cbi2009-10, dated 29.5.2009, forfeiting the security deposit of the petitioner and blacklist the petitioner, as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and irrationar and consequenuy set aside the same and direct the respondent corporation to release the security deposit amount to the petitioner and enable the petitioner to participate in the future contracts that may be offered by the Respondent-corporation to similarly situated persons like the petitioner and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 O F 2009( WPMP. NO:1542 I OF 2009)

¶15

Petition under Section i 51 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 operation and effect of the order of the respondent corporation bearing No.sSDC/P&A/PUR/5kg bb/2009-10, dated 29.5.2009, purporting to blacklist the petitioner and forfeit the security deposit of the petitioner, pending disposal of the writ petition in the interest of justice and grant such other relief.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for the Respondent: SRI GORIGAY MALLESH

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

\ \

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT.^{JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI} WRIT PETITION No.11966 of 2OO9

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

This Writ Petition is hled seeking a^{writ of mandamus} declaring the action of the^{respondent-Corporationin passing} order No.SSDC/P&A/PUR/5kg^{cb/2OO9-lOt,dated 29.05 .2OOg,} forfeiting the security deposit^of the^{petitioner and blacklistingthe} petitioner as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to set^aside the same and direct the respondent-Corporation^{to release the} security deposit amount to the petitioner and enable^the petitioner to participate in the future contracts that may be offered by the respondent corporation and to pass such other order or order.

¶22

As there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on 29.03.2023, the matter was directed to be listed under^the caption "for dismissal" on 12.O4.2023. Inspite of the matter^being tisted under the caption "for dismissal", there is no^{representation} on behalf of the petitioner even today. In^view' of^{the same, it is} presumed that the petitioner is not interested to pursue the Writ Petition.

¶23

Acr:ordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for^non- proseclttiorr. Llor'r,ever, the^{petitioneris at libertyto seek for recall}

¶24

¶25

PM w.P.No. t 1966 of 20

¶26

ol this order if the cause of action survives in this Writ Petition

¶27

There sha-ll be no order as to costs.

¶28

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition,

¶29

sha-ll stand closed

¶30

SD/-G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To PSK. SB

'l One CC to SRI V.VENKATARAIT/ANA, Advocate [OPUC] 2 One CC to SRI GORIGAY MALLESH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶35

Two CD Copies

PfiA,

HIGH COURT

DATED:12 104t2023

-l 4,
s-6s
<br>

ORDER

WP.No.11966 of 2009

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FOR NON.PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS. (l P^c, tstq\rE

M/s. Printwell, represented by its Proprietor v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Printwell, represented by its Proprietor v. The Andhra Pradesh State Seeds Development

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

A.Adi Lakshmi Vs The State of Telangana

M/S. Siri Organic Crop Care Vs The State of Telangana and another

M/s. Sri Rama Organics Vs The State of Telangana

N.a.Panjawani Vs Central Power Distribution Company of Ap. Limited

Andhra Pradesh Primary Teachers Association, Vs the Government of a.P., and Ano.

M/s. Avi Additives (P) Ltd., Plot No.4, Vs The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory