APHC010369662013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 29466/2013 Between: 1. M/S.DURGA PRASAD MINERAL WATER PLANT, RAJAHMUNDRY, REP. BY IT'S MANAGING PARTNER, BETHALA SRINIVAS, S/O.RAMANA, AGE: R.S.NO.363, SWIMMING POOL ROAD, GAYATRI NAGAR, 10TH WARD, RAJAHMUNDRY CITY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF A P REP BY DIRECTOR BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS, VISAKHAPATNAM. 2. B V S R K PRASAD, FOOD DESIGNATED OFFICER, FOOD & HEALTH DEPARTMENT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, 5 BUILDINGS, KAKINADA. 3. THE DEPUTY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, APEPDCL, KAKINADA. ...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, direction specifically in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in writing to Respondent No.3 to disconnect the Electricity Supply to Industry is without authority and illegal and pass 2 IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 36612 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.3 not to act upon the letter of Respondent No.2 dated:15-07-2013 and consequently not to disconnect the power supply to the Petitioner Industry during pendency of the above Writ Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2013(WPMP 40743 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 implead the Proposed Respondent as Respondent No.4 in the above Writ Petition in the interest of Justice. Otherwise Petitioner will suffer irreparable loss IA NO: 2 OF 2014(WPMP 130116 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M V S SARMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. P ANAND SESHU (SC FOR APEPDCL) 3. M V S SARMA 4. GP FOR MED HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE 5. P KRISHNA PRAKASH The Court made the following order: Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner when the matter was listed 26.06.2025, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’. 2. Despite the writ petition being listed today under the caption ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation for the petitioner either in the forenoon or 3 in the afternoon. It seems the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. 3. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 30.06.2025 KA 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 29466/2013 Date: 30.06.2025 KA