Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/5131/2013 of M/s. Techno Fab Engineering Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by 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: 5131/2013 Between: 1. M/S. TECHNO FAB ENGINEERING LTD.,, REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER
APHC010284942013
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: 5131/2013
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. M/S. TECHNO FAB ENGINEERING LTD.,, REP. BY ITS ASST. MANAGER & POWER OF ATTORNEY, N.SUDARSHAN RAO S/O. LATE N. RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 507 EROS APARTMENT, 56 NEHRU PLACE, NEW DELHI.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH REP BY, COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, RTC X ROADS, HYDERABAD
2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR, VISAKHAPATNAM.
3. THE ASST LABOUR COMMISSIONER CENTRAL LICENSING OFFICER, UNDER C.L. (R&A), VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE GENERAL MANAGER PROJECTS CONTRACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM.
5. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PCONTRACTS, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM.
6. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER FINTER PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM STEEL PLANT, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
NJS,J W.P No.5131 of 2013
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. P VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR LABOUR
2. K SARVA BHOUMA RAO
NJS,J W.P No.5131 of 2013
The Court made the following Order:
On 03.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, and the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for Dismissal”.
2. Though the matter is listed under the caption “for Dismissal”, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner, even today also.
3. Under the said circumstances, this Court is inclined to dismiss the writ petition for non-prosecution.
4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:05.03.2026 Ksj