APHC010358452014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3459] SATURDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 27924/2014 Between: 1. M/S MAA SANTHOSH CARRIARS,, REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, SRI RAMAKATH DASS, S/O LATE K.0 DASS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O 63-3-40/6, VIJAYA RESIDENCY, FLAT NO.SF-I, JAWAHAR NAGAR, VISHAKAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATOR), SECUNDERABAD. 2. THE HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS SENIOR INSTALLATION MANAGER DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY, VISHAKA TERMINAL, PORT CONNECTIVITY ROAD, PETRO PARK, VISHAKAPATNAM. ...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 toto issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned proceedings NWOT/DRR/OPNS, Dt:21-08-2014 of the 2nd respondent in placing the tank trucks contract under black list without any valid reasons is highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the procedure and conditions of the agreement Dt:21-05-2010 and consequently direct the respondents to continue the existing contract till expires excluding the vehicles involved in the alleged irregularities and by releasing the amount Rs.18,28,918/- deducted from the bills of the petitioner as loss of product by the respondents 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 34971 OF 2014 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 respondents to allow the petitioner to transport the petroleum products by other trucks which were not involved in alleged irregularities vide agreement Dt:21-05-2010 till the contract is expired by suspending the impugned proceedings vide NWOT/DRR/OPNS, Dt:21-08-2014 of the 2nd respondent pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY(SC FOR HPCL) 2. M RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: No representation for the petitioner. Sri Bandaru Srinarayana, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Ravindranath Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, appeared virtually and submitted that the cause in the writ petition does not survive for adjudication and the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM 30th August, 2025 cbn 4 95 THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WP No.27924 of 2014 30th August, 2025 cbn