Dismissed

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/21923/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner challenged a government order dated 12.09.2008, alleging it was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g), seeking a mandamus to cancel it. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous on the ground that the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous with no order as to costs.

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I32s2l

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 21923 oF 2014

¶7

Between:

¶8

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd., B-16,^{Technocrats lndustrialEstate,} Phase ll, Balanagar, Hyderabad 500 037^{Representedby} its^Managing Director Mr. Sunil Kumar Patodia

¶9

Mr. Sunil Kumar Patodia, S/o Late Shree^{Kishan Patodia, Aged about 60} Years

¶10

...PETtrtoNERs

¶11

AND

¶12

Union of lndia, Represented by the Secretary,^{Ministry of Defence New Delhi-} 110 001

¶13

Ordinance Factory Khamaria, Jabalpur^{(M.P-)- 482-005 Represented by its} General Manager

¶14

Ordinance Fattory Board,^10-A, S.K.^{Bose Road, Kolkata700001,} Represented by its Secretary

¶15

...RES'.NDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution^{of lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more^{particularlyone in} the nature of a mandamus or^{declaration declaringthe inaction of the} Respondents not cancelling of the^{existing order No LP0841 17 dated} 12.09.2008, as being arbitrary,^{violative of the principlesof natural} iustice,^ultra vires, unjust, unreasonable, capricious^{and encroaching uponthe constitutional} rights of the Petitioners, including^{Articles 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of} lndia and other legal^{rightsand invalid and consequentlydirect the2nd} Respondent to cancel the Order^{No. LP0841 17 dated12.09.2OO8}

¶17

l.A. NO: 1OF 2014^(WPMP. NO:27500^{oF 2014)}

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} direct the^petitioner's bid^{for any tenders floatedby the Respondentsshall be}

¶19

considered and the petitioner not be disqualified on account of the subsistence of order No.LP084117 dated 12-9-2OOB

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner :M/s. K. MAMATA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI cADl PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2&3: -

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶25

w PETITI ON No.21 923 of^20t4

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners approached^{the Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶28

"to issue a Writ direction^{or order more in the} nature of Writ of^{Mandamus ordeclaration} declaring the^{inaction of the respondents not} cancelling of^{the existingorder No'1P084117 dated} 12.09.2008, as^{beingarbitrary, violative of the} principles of natural^{justice, ultra vlres, unjust} unreasonable,^{capricious and encroaching upon the} constitutional^{rights of the petitioners,including} Articles 14 and 19^{(1) (g) of the Constitutionof} India and other^{legal rights and invalid and} consequently direct^{the 2nd Respondentto cancel} the Order No.LPO84117^{dated 12'09'2008"'}

¶29

t l

¶30

Learned counsel^{appearingfor the first respondent} brings to the notice^{the Court that the cause of action in} the present writ^{petition does not survivefor}

¶31

adjudication,^{anY more.}

¶32

¶33

*. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However,

¶34

there shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any,

¶36

pending in this Writ petition shall also stand closed.

¶37

SD/.MOHD.ISMAIL ASSISTANT R GISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to M/s. K. MAMATA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DY. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies BM SS

¶42

HIGH COURT

¶43

DATED:0811212023

¶44

1 $E sIA16
oo 0 I ,l A l,i 202{ oz
t
t
DE PAT c
AS INFRUCTOUSINFRUCTOUS
5
D

¶45

ORDER

¶46

WP.No.21923 of 2014

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTOUSINFRUCTOUS WITHOUT COSTS

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Represented by the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hyderabad Precision Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Represented by the 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

Panchaneni Manohar Rao Vs The Union of India

V. Venkatanarasimha Rao Vs The Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

B. Rajaiah Vs Sri Navin Mittal, I.A.S

Ch. Meenaiah, Vs The Reserve Bank of India

M/s. Vijai Electricals Ltd. Vs State Bank of India

Biradar Devidas Vs Sri Sunil Sharma, IAS