Dismissed

M/s Print Time and Business Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC8 Feb 2023WP/37936/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a dismissal as infructuous of a writ petition challenging a tender notification. The petitioner filed to declare the tender illegal and seek relaxation of criteria. The petitioner's counsel submitted that the cause no longer survives for adjudication, and the court dismissed the petition on these grounds.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.

M/s Print Time and Business… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

[³³⁰³ ]

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF FEBRUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS^RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 37936^{OF 2014}

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s Print Time & Business Enterprises,^{rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Syed Asif} Mahmood, S/o Syed^{Mahmood Ah, aged about 35 yrs, Occ: Business,} R/o H.No. 23-1-916/8, Moghalpura, Hyderabad.

¶9

...,ETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra^{Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary,Womenand Child} Welfare Department, Having^{officeai Secretariat, Hyderabad.}

¶12

The Women Development^{5nd Child Welfare-Department, State oJAndhra} Pradesh, rep. by its bommissioner,^{Having office.at2ND Floor, HMDA-} SWARNA Jbyanti Complex,^{Beside Mitrivanam,nmeernetl6Aae6lO6$Oa*r"}

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of the^{Constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Court may be} pleased to pass an order, direction or a writ^{particularly in the nature of Writof} Mandamus declaring that the tender^{notification issuedby the respondentNO. 2'} vide Bid Reference No.^{Lr. No.25401K212014, dated 25.11.2014,is illegal, arbitrary,} in violation of Article 14 of the constitution^{of lndia and in violationof G.O Ms'} No.'1020, dated 30-11-1976^{andin violationof Public Procurement Police of Micro} and Small Enterprises^{(MSEs) Order 2012, as notifiedby the Governmentof lndia,} Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium^{Enterprises, New Delhivide Gazette dated} 26.3.2012. Consequently, this^{Hon'bleCourt may be pleasedto direct the} respondent No. 2 to relax the Pre-Qualification^{criteriaNo. 1' 2 and 5, vide Bid} Reference No. Lr No.2540 tK212014,^{daled 25.11.2o14, thereby allowing the} petitioner firm to participate in the tender.

¶14

il2tl

¶15

¶16

t.A. NO: 1 OF^201r PMP. N O:47447 OF 2014

¶17

Petition und ?r Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circtrnstances stated in} the afiidavit filed ir support^{of the petition,the High Court ma'r be pleasedto pass} an interim directio r thereby directing^{the respondent No.2 to 1ot to proceed with} the tender notifica ion vide^{reference No. Lr.NO.25401K212014,dated 25.11.2014,} pending disposal⁽ f the writ^petition.

¶18

l.A. NO: 2 OF 201, PMP NO: 47880 OF

¶19

Petition unc er Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the cir(,Llrnstancesstated in} the affidavit flled n support^{of the petition,the High Courtnray be pleasedto} advance the date of hearing^{rn W.P.No. 37936of 2014today or tomorrow for} further hearing in he interest^{of justice}

¶20

Counsel for the P^gtitioner: MS. MOHAMMADI^HAFSAFOR

¶21

SRI. MOHAMMAD ADNAN

¶22

Counsel for the F espondents: GP^{FOR WOMEN DEVELOPiIIENT &} CHILD WELFARE

¶23

The Court made^I he following:^ORDER

¶24

¶25

HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE J SREENTVAS RAO

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.37936 of 2014

¶27

ORDER

¶28

When the matter is taken up for hearing, Ms. Mohammadi Hafsa, learned counsel representing Sri Mohd. Adnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly submits that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication.

¶29

In view of the above submission, this writ petition is

¶30

dismissed as infructuous.

¶31

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand

¶32

closed.

¶33

SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (y, SECTION OFFICER

¶34

To, 1. One CC to SRl. MOHAMMAD ADNAN Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Women Development & Child Welfare, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 3. Two CD Copies CHR

BSR

HIGH COUF T

DATED:0811'212023

ORDER

W.P.No.37936 of 2014

I
a-
t) 2 5 FiB ?izl
'
'v_.*,

¶42

DISMISSINI} THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT^(]OSTS

¶43

(. 66'i,.

M/s Print Time and Business Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Print Time and Business Enterprises, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its 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

M/s. Prasanth Poultry Farm Vs The State of Telengana

K.B. Poultry Farm Vs The State of Telangana

Pochampally Achyuta Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Cherukumalli Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

M Laskhmikanthayya Vs State of Tg,Scy,Revenue,Hyd, am 5

M/s. Deepak Trading Company, Vs The Government of Telangana