Telangana High Court
WP/10/2005 of The Girijana Labour Contract Co.operative Society Ltd., Vs The Regional Manager, on 31 December 2009
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.10 OF 2005 Dt.31.12.2009 Between: The Girijana Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Giddalur Taluq, Prakasam District, Rep. by its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.10 OF 2005
Dt.31.12.2009
Between:The Girijana Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., Giddalur Taluq,Prakasam District, Rep. by its PresidentK. Arja Naik … Petitioner
And
The Regional ManagerGirijana Cooperative Corporation Ltd.,Telugu Samkshema Bhavan, 4[th] Floor, Masab Tank Hyderabad-28 … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO.10 OF 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action ofthe respondent in insisting on earnest money deposit for accepting thepetitioner’s tender for procurement of Green Amla in Srisailam Division,as illegal and arbitrary.
There is no representation for the petitioner.
At the hearing, Sri N. Sridhar Reddy, learned Standing Counselfor the respondent, submitted that the interim order dt.05.1.2005 wassubsequently modified and in pursuance of the modified order, therespondent has rejected the petitioner’s tender notice and entrusted thecontract to a third party. He, therefore, submitted that the cause in theWrit Petition does not survive for consideration.
As the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not present tocontrovert the above submission, accepting the submission of thelearned Counsel for the respondent, the Writ Petition is disposed of asinfructuous.
31.12.2009
______________________
C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
bnr