APHC010440512025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL NO: 986 of 2025 along with W.A.No.997 of 2025 Bench Sr.Nos:- 63 to 68 [3483] W.A.No.986 of 2025: Sri Satya Sai Constructions ...Appellant Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for Appellant : Mr. B. Abhay Siddhanth Mootha Advocates for Respondents : Mr. D. Yathindra Dev appearing vice The Advocate General Mr. Ravula Nagarjuna CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 4th February 2026 P C : I.A.No.5 of 2025 in W.A.No.986 of 2025 & I.A.No.3 of 2025 in W.A.No.997 of 2025 Requirement of filing the certified copy of the order, dated 16.09.2025, passed in W.A.No.986 & 997 of 2025, is dispensed with. Accordingly, these I.A.s are disposed of. I.A.No.4 of 2025 in W.A.No.986 of 2025 & I.A.No.2 of 2025 in W.A.No.997 of 2025 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, who seeks review of the judgment and order, dated 16.09.2025, on the ground that the statement made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant before the Court, that the appellant would not challenge the allotment of work in favour of third parties, who had already undertaken approximately 20% of the work which was earlier allotted to the appellant, was in fact creating difficulties for the review petitioner and would not get any relief at all from the committee, which was directed to be constituted by this Court in the judgment and order of which review is sought, inasmuch as unless and until the order of termination was held to be passed as a result of mala fide action based upon the recommendations of the committee of which one of the officers who was later on caught red handed by the ACB, the constitution of the committee would actually be of no avail or help to the appellant. It is also urged that the appellant would in fact be rendered remediless. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the opinion that the statement by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A.No.986 of 2025, the review petitioner herein, was made voluntarily, who had undertaken not to challenge the order of allotment made in favour of third parties. The apprehension that is expressed today before us by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the petitioner would be left remediless is an apprehension which has no basis at all. In fact in the order especially in paragraph No.5, we have observed that the appellant i.e. the review petitioner herein, would be at liberty to work out the remedies before the civil Court. In addition to this, we had observed that in case a representation was made by the appellant before the Government, the same would be forwarded to a committee of at least three officers. It appears that a representation was never made and that instead of making a representation, the appellant chose to file the present review petition, which, in our opinion, is without any merit inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Review Applications are accordingly dismissed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J kbs