1 APHC010070682014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 21st DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9609 OF 2014 Between: 1. G. SRINIVAS RAO, PRAKASAM DT. & ANR, S/o.G.Brahmaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o.H.No. 7-227(18), 8th Lane , Sujatha Nagar, Near Vignana Barathi School, Ongole, Prakasam District. 2. B.Srinivas Rao,, S/o. B.Chalamaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ: Contractor R/o. H.No. 11-95, Kothapeta, Vetapalem(Mandal), Prakasam District. ...Petitioners AND 1. CHAIRMAN M D APTRANSCO HYD 10 OTHRS, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Vidhyuth Saudha, Kairthabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Southern Power Distribution Company of A P, Limited, Corporate Office, Tirupati, Rep. by its Chairman and Managing Director Near Govindharajulu Arts College, Bairagipattada Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, Ramnagar Main Road, Ongole, Prakasam District. 4. The Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, Ongole, APSPDCL, Prakasam District - 523001. 5. The Divisional Engineer, Operation Division, Chirala, APSPDCL, Prakasam District - 523157. 2 6. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Rural-I, Ongole, APSPDCL, Prakasam District - 523002. 7. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Chirala, APSPDCL, Prakasam District - 523157. 8. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation Sub Division, Purchur, APSPDCL, Prakasam District. 9. The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Chimakurti, Prakasam District - 523226. 10. The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, D-I Section, Chirala, Prakasam District 523155. 11. The Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL, Parchur, Prakasam District - 523316. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Nos. 2 to 11 in meddling with the process of recruiting and engaging the employees to be made by the petitioners i.e., contractors, under their control to attend operation and maintenance works at various 33/11KV Sub Stations in Prakasam District, as bad, illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequentially to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 11 to withdraw the candidates recommended by them who are working in 33/11KV Sub Stations at Pallamalli (concerning to Ist petitioner), Chirala Town Sub Station and Adusumalli (concerning to 2nd petitioner) under the control of respondent Nos.2 to 11 without consent of petitioners/agencies, in Prakasam District and to allow the petitioners/agencies to recruit employees at their own choice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2014(WPMP 12061 OF 2014 3 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent Nos.2 to 11 not to interfere with the process of recruiting and engaging employees to be engaged by the petitioners/licensed agencies to work at 33/1IKV Sub Stations at Pallamalli (concerning to 1st petitioner), Chirala Town Sub Station and Adusumalli (concerning to 2nd petitioner) under the control of respondent Nos.2 to 11 without consent of petitioners/ agencies, in Prakasam District, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition and to pass IA NO: 4 OF 2014(WPMP 109893 OF 2014 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Counsel for the Petitioners: E SAMBASIVA PRATAP Counsel for the Respondents: P VINOD KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents:V R REDDY KOVVURI (SC FOR APCPDCL) The Court made the following order: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9609 OF 2014 ORDER:- None appeared for the petitioners. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the engagement of the employees by the petitioners at the subject sub-station is only for a period of one year. The period of contract has already been lapsed two decades ago. Therefore, no cause survives for further adjudication in this matter and the Writ Petition becomes infructuous. 4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is closed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Date:21.09.2026 TPS 5 38 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 9609 OF 2014 Date:21.09.2026 TPS