Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/9312/2013 of M/S Krishna Saa Fabs Private Ltd., Vs The Chairman Manging Director 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: 9312/2013 Between: 1. M/S KRISHNA SAA FABS PRIVATE LTD.,, GOJULAMANDYAM, INDUSTRIAL
APHC010393042013
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: 9312/2013
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 KRISHNA SAA FABS PRIVATE LTD.,, GOJULAMANDYAM, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE , THIRUPATHI REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI N. DORA SWAMY SON OF KRISHNAIAH, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
YEARS, R/O GAJULAMANDYAM, THIRUPATHI, CHITTORE DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE CHAIRMAN MANGING DIRECTOR, APSPDCL, KESVAYANAGUNTA, THIRUPATHI-517501, CHLTTOR DISTRICT.
2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OPERATION /APSPDCL, BHAVANI NAGAR THIRUPATHI CHITTOOR, DIISTRICT.
3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATIONAPSPDL, TIRUCHANUR ROAD, THIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
4. THE ASSISSTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER OPERATION, APSPDCL, RENIGUNTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
NJS,J W.P No.9312 of 2013
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K MALLESHWARI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL
2. V R REDDY KOVVURI(SC FOR APSPDCL)
3. N SIVA REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO)
NJS,J W.P No.9312 of 2013
The Court made the following Order:
On 03.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and 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