M/s. Yerri Swamy Harijana Labour Contract Co-op. Society Limited, v. STATE OF AP
WP/17907/2018 · 2025-04-02
Nyapathy Vijay
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27145 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 27145 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010385112018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17907 OF 2018 Between: M/s. Yerri Swamy Harijana Labour Contract Co-op. Society Limited, and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. K SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV (TG) The Court made the following:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 17907 OF 2018 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing Tender Notice No.6 to 12/2018-2019/General Funds/TO without providing 60% reservation to the Scheduled Castes in the contract for supply of labour for maintenance of Sanitation works without following the norms contained in G.O.Ms.No.581, MA, dated 06.11.1996 as highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 2nd respondent not to open or finalise the tender Notice No.6 to 12/2018- 2019/General Funds/TO without following the norms contained in G.O.Ms.No.581 MA dated 06.11.1996 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and pass such other orders....”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of passage of time, the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for an adjudication by this Court.
3. While recording the above said submission, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 02.04.2025 KK