This is an order dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 226 for directing payment of a contract amount and an interim application for such payment. The High Court held that the cause of action no longer survived for adjudication and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
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.
t32521
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 15075 OF 2014
Between:
ERRAPATI NAGARJUNA, S/o. Venkateshwarlu, Hindu, Aged about 38 Years, Occ Civil Contractor, R/o. D. No. 10-2-22, Near Bug Station, Palvancha, Khammam District.
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
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 a Writ or order or direction more partrcularly one in the nature of WRIT OF IVIANDAMUS declaring the actron of the Respondents herein particularly Respondents No. 2 and 3 in not paying the contract amount as per the contract Lr. SE/084M/KTPS(A)/T. No. 83/'13-14IPLOWD.No.323/'13, dated 31.05.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of the contract law
l.A. NO: 'l OF 2014(WPMP. NO: 18676 OF 20 141
Petition under Section'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to direct the Respondents herein particularly Respondents No.2 & 3 to pay the contract amount as per the contract Lr. SE/O&M/KTPS(AyT. No. 8311314IPLOI/D. No.323/13, dated 3'1.05.2013 entered with the petitioner pending disposal of the main writ petition
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. A K KISHORE REDDY
The Court madethe following:ORDER
t I
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.15075 of 2OL4
ORDER:
Heard Sri A, K. Kishore Reddy/ learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Pavan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSGENCO, appearing on behalf of respondents,
"...to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents herein pa rticu la rly Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not paying the contract amount as per the co n tra ct l-r. SE/O&M/KTPS(A)/r. No. 83 / 13- t4 / PL}I/D. No. 323/13, dated 31.05.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, high handed and violative of the contract law and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumsta nces of the case."
2
I I j
of action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication, any more.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions , if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.
SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASS T T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//
TION OFFICER
To,
J Two CD Copies KKS LS
$
i , I I t I
HlGH COURT
DATED:0910912024
;-.=-:s..
,./, ,; \ tt s r.r i i -l i.,.
.!J^\.
... ,<br>(i''r
-;
I
: I ''1 ,' ZUI '-',
.i,r
.'|/
-:. /
ORDER
WP.No.15075 of 2O14
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS
a @c'r' 1o*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging non-payment of a contract amount is maintainable in the present circumstances.
Whether the locus standi of the petitioner continues to exist for adjudication of the writ petition.
ERRAPATI NAGARJUNA
CHAIRIVAN AND M.D
The Chief Engineer 0 & M
The Superintending Engineer
SUREPALLI NANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
