Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17152/2010 of Sri Lalitha Enterprises Industries (P) Ltd Vs The A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd., on 9 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 17152/2010 Between: 1. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES (P) LTD, PEDDAPURAM,
APHC010657602010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 17152/2010
Between:
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.
1. SRI LALITHA ENTERPRISES INDUSTRIES (P) LTD, PEDDAPURAM, VALUTHIMMAPUTAM ROAD, PEDDAPURAM REP. BY ITS MATTERY SATYA PRASAD, MANAGING DIRECTOR S/O LATE M. ADI NARAYANA, 48 YRS, HINDU BUSINESS R/O PEDDAPURAM (PO) E.G. DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE A P EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD, VISAKHAPATNAM, REP. BY ITS THE ASST,. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION & LINES SUB DIVISION, SAMALKOTA (PO) E.G.DIST.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION CIRCLE, APEPDCL, VIDYUT SAKHABHAVAN GODAVARIBUND, RAJAHMUNDRY-5, (PO) E.G. DISTRICT.
3. THE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR APEPDCL CORPORATE, OFFICE , POSTAL COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM (PO) & (DIST)
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P NARASIMHA RAO
2. METTA CHANDRASEKHARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)
NJS,J W.P No.17152 of 2010
The Court made the following Order:
Ms. P Vimala Devi, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and the matter has become infructuous.
2. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim orders, if any, granted on the earlier occasion shall stand dissolved. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:10.03.2026 Ksj