M/s. Shalivahana Electrical^{EngineeringAND Civil Works,H No 6-547,} fvfa*.i noiA, Mancherial^{- 50420-8, Adila6ad District, Rep. by its Proprietor T'} Kedarishwar S/o Srihari,^{aged 46 years,}

¶10

...'ET,T'ONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The Transmission corporation^{of Telangana Ltd., having its corporateoffice} at Vidyuth Soudha, Hyderabad^{- 82, rep. by its '3hairman and Managing} Director.

¶13

z. ine Cnief Engineer, Warangal^{Zone,TS Transco Ltd , Warangal, Warangal} District.

¶14

ihe Superintending Engineer^{(Operation& MaintenanceCircle),TS Transco} Ltd., Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶15

ihe'Divisionai Engineer^{(Operation& Maintenance), TS TranscoLtd.,} Mancherial, Adilabad District

¶16

s. ine AOO[. Assistant Engineer^{(Operation),132133 KV Sub-Station' Luxettipet,} Adilabad District

¶17

...RES'.NDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe^{constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the^{affidavitfiled therewith,the High court may be} pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or^{direction moreparticularly one in the} nature of writ of mandamus^{declaring the actionof the Respondents No. 3 to 5 in} general and the 5th Respondent in^{particularin creating the problems for carrying} out and continuance of operation^{andMaintenanceoI 132111KV Gudem Sub-} station (Lift lrrigation) on works^{contractbasis pursuant to the concluded L.s.} Agreement No. 6/2014-1 5-1 13 vide^{Lr. No SE/OMC/ADB/Tech/F No D No'} 548115, dated 23-01-20'15 issued by the^{3rd Respondent,the action of the} Respondents in not extending the^{period of agreement on par withthe other} contractors and the action of^{the Sth Respondentin not acceptingthe bills} submitted by the Petitioner^{for the period from 19-11'2014to 31-01-2015 as} arbitrary, iltegal and violative^{of Articles14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the constitutionof}

¶19

lndia and consequently^{direct the RespondentsNo.2 to 5 to continue the} Petitioners L S. Agreement^{No. 6/20'14 and 1 5-1 1 3 of the 3rd Respondentwithout} any hurdles through the 5th^{Respondentand regularly paying the Bills for manning} and maintenan ce of^{132t11K.V. Gudem sub-station (Lift lrrigation), by extending} the period of Agreement^{on par with the othercontractors and pass}

¶20

l.A. NO: 1OF 2015^{(WPMP. NO: 12998OF 2015)}

¶21

Petition under section^{151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to direct} the Respondents No.2 to^{5 to continuethe Petitioner'sL.S AgreementNo.} 6t2014 & 15-1^'1 3 of the 3rd^{Respondent,for manr;ing& maintenanceof 132111} K.V. Gudem Sub-station^{(Lift lrrigation),on par with the other contractors without} any interruption,^{pending the abovewrit petition.}

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI^{CHANDRAIAHSUNKARA} Gounsel for the Respondents:^{SRI R.VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO}

¶23

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶24

-,/

¶25

HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.98aG of 2015

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

Heard Sri Chandraiah Sunkara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counse! for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶29

The petitioner approached the Court seeking^prayer as u nder:

¶30

"...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in general and the 5th Respondent in particular in creating the problems for carrying out and continuance of Operation and Maintenance of 132/LL KV Gudem Substation (Lift Irrigation) on works contract basis pursuant to the concluded L S Agreement No.6/2014-15113 vide Lr.No.SE/OMC/ADB/Tech/F.No. D.No.54Bl15, dated 23.01.2015 issued by the 3'd Respondent, the action of the Respondents in not extending the^period of

¶31

\agreement^{on par with the other contractorsand the} hction of the 5th Respondent in not accepting the bills submitted by the Petitioner for the period from 19.11.20t4 to 31.01.2015 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to continue the Petitioner's L.S. Agreement No.6/2014 and 15-113 of the 3'd Respondent without any hurdles through the 5th Respondent and

¶32

, I

¶33

¶34

regularly paying the Bills for rnanning and maintenance of 132/ 7i KV Gudem Sub-station (Lift Irrigation), by extending the period of Agreernent on par with the other contractors and pass such other orders as may be jsut."

¶35

Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 brings to the notice of this Court that the cause of.action in the present writ petition does not survive for adjudication any more.

¶36

Bringing the said submission of Sri R. Vinod Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSTRANSCO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 5 on record, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶37

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed.

¶38

SD/.N. SRIHARI ASSISTANLREGISTRAR (,//TRUE COPY// -\

¶39

seirroru oFFtcER

¶40

To 1. One CC to SRI CHANDRAIAH SUNKARA, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI R VINOD REDDY, SC FOR TSTRANSCO [OPUC] 3. Two CD PSK GJP Copies(fr

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510912024

ORDER

WP.No.9886 of 2015

1HE S14 14:
'/
q
,z
,, itE[ 20a
.}-
t
, r -;::o

¶47

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS. ?+ lt t( ,-\ sc

M/s. Shalivahana Electrical Engineering and Civil Works, v. The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s. Shalivahana Electrical Engineering and Civil Works, v. The Transmission Corporation of Telangana Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Gonda Seva Samithi (Regd.) Vs The State of Telangana

S. Sreenivas Vs The Apsrtc

S.Sreenivas Vs TheAPSRTC.

M.Satyanarayana Murthy Vs D.Madhavi

Gogineni Rama Krishna, Vs The Ts Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

M/s Sri Venkateshwara Projects Vs The State of Telangana