Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3148 (AP)

IKKURTHI VEERA SEKHARA RAO, GUNTUR DIST. v. SECY., MUN. ADMN., HYD. & 3 ORS.

WP/6268/2014 · 2025-03-20

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010012892014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6268 Between: Ikkurthi Veera Sekhara Rao, Guntur Dist. Secy Mun Admn Hyd 3 Ors and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N RAVI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO 2. G TUHIN KUMAR 3. GHANTA SRIDHAR 4. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6268 OF 2014 Ikkurthi Veera Sekhara Rao, Guntur Dist. AND Secy Mun Admn Hyd 3 Ors and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): ANCHA PANDURANGA RAO GHANTA SRIDHAR GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 6268 OF 2014 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 respondents more particularly the 3rd respondent-Guntur Municipal Corporation Represented by its Commissioner in not awarding the two Contract works for providing Mini High Mast Lighting System (M.S.pole 12 meters) at 16 places mentioned at various places in Guntur Town, mentioned in I.F.B Tender Notifications Nos.ET No. 92/2013-2014 Item No.3 and E T No.92/2013-2014, Item No.4 in favour of the petitioner so far and making efforts to give the same to the 4th respondent is illegal, void, discriminatory and unconstitutional and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to give the two Contract Works relating to providing Mini High Mast Lighting System (M.S. pole 12 meters) at 16 places mentioned at various places in Guntur Town mentioned in I.F.B Tender Notifications Nos. ET No.92/2013-2014 Item No 3 and E T No.92/2013-2014, Item No 4 to the petitioner and pass such other orders....” 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the contract was awarded to respondent No.4. In view of passage of time and changed circumstances; the cause in this Writ Petition does not survive for an adjudication by this Court. 3. Recording the 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: 20.03.2025 KK