1 APHC010205632014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] TUESDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 14299/2014 Between: 1. M. SATYANARAYANA, S/O GURUNATHAM AGED ; 49 YRS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O 17-45-A1, PARK ROAD NANDYAL KURNOOL DIST., ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (OPERATION) APCPDCL, VIDYUT BHAVAN, KURNOOL., 2. THE ASST DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (OCC) SUBDIVISION, NANDYAL, KURNOOL DIST., 3. THE CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF ANDHRA PRADESH, LTD., REPT. BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (O&M) HYDERABAD. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: No representation on behalf of the Writ Petitioner. 2. Heard Ms. Jyothi Ratna A, learned Junior Standing Counsel representing Sri Venkata Rama Rao Kota, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL. 3. The prayer sought in the present Writ Petition is as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing Tender Notification No.180/13-14, without framing the points for consideration in selecting the contractor when there are several valid tenders filed for allotment of contract work of outsourcing of CSC on work contract basis for operation and maintenance in respect of (OCC) Sub-Division, Nandyal for a period of one year as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent to frame the points for selecting the tenderer and finalise the tenders after disclosing the points for consideration to all the tenderers in the interest of justice and to grant such other necessary relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. This Writ Petition is of the year 2014 and it was listed on two earlier occasions (29.04.2014 & 08.05.2014). There is no Interim Order passed by this Court. 5. The above extract of the prayer itself would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has challenged the Tender Notification No.180/13-14. The above extract would clearly indicate that the cause does not survive. 6. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 3 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 02.12.2025 Vns