APHC010121982013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 39379/2013 Between: 1. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, SECTOR 25, PLOT NO.67, 68, FARIDABAD, HARYANA STATE. 2. NATIONAL PROJECT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED,, REP. BY ITS PROJECT OFFICER, 11-130, ABOVE CANARA BANK, CHATTIVANI PALEM, OLD GAJUWAKA, VISAKHAPTNAM-26 ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. STATE BANK OF PATIALA, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, SECTOR-9 MKT, FARIDABAD, HARYANA STATE. 2. M/S E KONDAIAH CONSTRUCTIONS, REP. BY ITS E. KONDAIAH S/O. LATE MALAKONDAIAH, R/O. CHAMBALA POST AND VILLAGE (VIA) BITRAGUNTA, KAVALI TALUK, NELIORE DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the respondent No.1 in withholding an amount of Rs.18,37,468/- of petitioner's bank account No.55005650376 of State Bank of Patiala, No.133, Sector-9, Faridabad, Haryana, relying on the notice issued by the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam on 21-01-2013 in EP No.6 of 2013 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional or pass such any other 2 appropriate order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 48898 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.1 to permit the petitioner No.1 Corporation to operate the account hold by the respondent No.1 basing on the notice dt.21-01-2013 issued by the 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam in EP No.6 of 2013 pending disposal. Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. K JAGADISHWAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. -- 2. KS Naveen The Court made the following ORDER: Despite the writ petition being listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioners either in the forenoon or in the afternoon. It seems the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J Dated 10.07.2025 SPP 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 39379 OF 2013 Dated 10.07.2025 SPP