APHC010691912016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 41431 Between: Y. Balaramaiah and Others The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP-MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) 2. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 41431 OF 2016 Y. Balaramaiah and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): P RAGHAVENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV(AP) VENKATA RAMA RAO The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3460] WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 41431 OF 2016 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 Memo No.892/CS6/2016 dt 14.10.2016 of the 2nd respondent, r/w Roc No 1474/2016El dt 21.11.2016 of the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the A.P.Municipalities Registration of Contractor Rules, 1978 and A.P.Tender Rules 1967 and is of without jurisdiction and further direct the respondents to declare that the registered contractors alone are eligible for participation in the tenders in Mandapeta Municipality, East Godavari District in view of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 5 AP Municipalities Tender Rules 1967 r/w A.P.Municipalities Registration of Contractors Rules 1978 and pass such other orders....” 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has no authority to issue the impugned Memo and consequently the respondent No.3 had cancelled the registration vide proceedings dated 21.11.2016. The petitioners relied on Rue 6(9) of A.P. Municipalities (Registration of Contractors) Rules 1978 in support of their claim. 3. This Court on 29.11.2016 passed an interim order suspending the impugned Memo dated 14.10.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no latest instruction from the petitioners. 5. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and in view of afflux of time, this Court is inclined to dismiss the Writ Petition, leaving it open to the petitioners to reagitate the issue if they have any grievance in future, if so advised. 6. The present Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 26.03.2025 KK