Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8943 (AP)

M/s. Arundathi (Contract) SC, ST, Karimikula Sankshema v. The Kadapa Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner

WP/12932/2014 · 2025-03-17

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010097622014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 12932/2014 Between: M/s. Arundathi (Contract) SC, ST, Karimikula Sankshema Sangam, Kudapa. ...PETITIONER AND The Kadapa Municipal Corporation Rep By Its Commissioner and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VANAM VISHWANATHAM Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 12932 of 2014 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following relief : “ to declare the action of 1st respondent in allowing the 2nd respondent by virtue of Work Order EAR No. 35, 36 and 685/2012-13/ATO-II dt. 30.03.2014 for supply of the man power to Kadapa Municipal Corporation on outsourcing basis though the period of contract under tender Notice No. 744, 745 dt. 09-10- 2013 has been expired by 31-03-2014 as wholly illegal, arbitrary without any authorisation and contrary to law and rules made thereunder, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to allow the Petitioner-Society till the 1st respondent called for fresh tenders or alternatively the petitioner-Society being the members of SC, STs may be awarded with the contract work under 15% reservation for supply of man power to the first respondent on outsourcing basis in accordance with the Government Orders in G O Ms No 30, dt. 18-01-2000”. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner represented that in the light of the subsequent developments, the cause in the Writ Petition has been rendered 3 infructuous and as such, no further orders are necessary in this Writ Petition. 3. Recording the said submission, the Writ Petition and other miscellaneous petitions, if any, are therefore dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 17.03.2025 eha 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No. 12932 of 2014 Date: 17.03.2025 eha U