Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2141 (GAU)

M/S Anil Electrical and Sanitary Goods Store (ESGS) v. The State of AP and 6 Ors

WP(C)/6/2024 · 2026-05-18

Kardak Ete

Writ Petition (Civil)body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC040000342024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/6/2024 M/S Anil Electrical and Sanitary Goods Store (ESGS) Main Road near Gandhi Statue, SIDDIPET, District Siddipet, Telangana 502103 represented by its proprietor Shri Srinivas Akula, S/o Shri Veereshma Akula VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented the Commissioner/ Secretary, Department of Power, Govt of AP, Itanagar 2:The Chief Engineer (Power) Age: 0 Occupation : Central Zone Govt of AP Itanagar 3:The Superintending Engineer (E) Age: 0 Occupation : APEC-VI Aalo Department of Power Govt of AP 4:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : Technical Tender Evaluation Committee E-Tender (Trunkey Mode) No. SE/APEC-VI/RDSS/91-AED/NIT/2023-24/368-80 dated 21.07.2-23 5:M/S Assam Electric Store Age: 0 Page No.# 2/3 Occupation : RBN Road Kokrajhar Assam Kokrajhar 1 AS094 UQ0305 Kokrajhar Range 6:M/s Techno Power Enterprises Pvt Ltd Age: 0 Occupation : Office at Infinity Think Tank Tower II 10th Floor Plot A3 Block Sector V Salt Lake Kolkata 700091 7:M/S Kashmirilal Construction Age: 0 Occupation : 825 Gandhi Chowk Ranikhet Uttarakhand 26364 Advocate for the Petitioner : Gumto Kato, Kirmani Lollen,Nyado Karga,Gamken Bam,Terji Kamchi Advocate for the Respondent : Lissing Perme, SC(Power) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 19-05-2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. S. Yirang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power Department, is present. Page No.# 3/3 It is noticed that despite several opportunities, the petitioner has failed to take fresh steps for service of notice upon respondent No. 5 till date. In view of the above, it appears that the petitioner is no longer interested in pursuing the writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant