Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/4884/2013 of Ch.Chandra Sekhar S/o Rama Linga Chowdary Vs The A.P.State Ware Housing Corporation on 4 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 4884/2013 Between: 1. CH.CHANDRA SEKHAR S/O RAMA LINGA CHOWDARY, OCC. BUSINESS.R/O
APHC010060612013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 4884/2013
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. CH.CHANDRA SEKHAR S/O RAMA LINGA CHOWDARY, OCC. BUSINESS.R/O DOOR NO.1-15, KUMARAPURAM (V) RAYAVARAM (M), EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE A P STATE WARE HOUSING CORPORATION, "WHAREHOUSING SADAN", 21-1D FLOOR, BEHIND GANDHI MAYAN, NAMKPALLY, HYDERABAD REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. TULA VISHNU MURTHY S/O LATE RAMANNA, R/O. 5-4/1, VEMULA PALLI, DOWRAPUDI, MANDAPETA MANDAL, E.G. DISTRICT R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER C.O. DT. 15-4-13 IN WPMP 12088 OF 13
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G JYOTHI KIRAN Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M P CHANDRAMOULI
2. K SATYA SRINIVASA RAO(SC FOR APSWC)
NJS,J W.P No.4884 of 2013
The Court made the following Order:
The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.1 in not intimating the date of opening of the price bid and proceeding further to finalize the tenders pursuant to the tender Notice No.SWC/B4/H&T/Tenders.165/2011 dated 03.01.2013 as illegal, arbitrary, etc., and to set aside the same.
2. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner filed a miscellaneous application seeking stay of all further proceedings including finalization of the tenders, pursuant to the said tender notice.
3. As seen from the docket proceedings, no interim orders were granted.
4. In view of the same, and as there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, even though the matter is listed under the caption “for Dismissal”, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition.
5. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.03.2026 Ksj