Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/12820/2016 of West Quay Multiport Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India, Through its Ministry of Shipping on 3 November 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE 3459 PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION No.12820 OF 2016 Between: West Quay Multiport Pvt. Ltd. --- Petitioner and Union of India,
APHC010578952016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
TUESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.12820 OF 2016
Between:
West Quay Multiport Pvt. Ltd.
---
Petitioner
and
Union of India, Through its Ministry
of Shipping and another
---
Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Sri Ch. Pushyam Kiran
Counsel for the Respondents
: Smt.S. Siva Kumari,
Sri Tenepalli Niranjan &
Sri P. Sri Ram
The Court made the following:
JS,J
WP No.12820/2016
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, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a writ, direction or order especially in the nature of a writ of mandamus:
(a) declaring the Resolution No.180/2015-16 dated 6th November, 2015 and Circular No.588 dated 16th November 2015 insofar as it makes a distinction between “geared” and “gearless” vessels as being illegal and bad in law and, consequently, set aside the same to the extent that the circular makes a distinction between “geared” and “gearless” vessels:
(b) declaring that the Resolution No.241/2015-16 dated 4th February, 2016 and Circulars dated 19th January 2016 and 18th February, 2016 as being illegal and bad in law and, consequently, set aside the same:
(c) and pass such further or other order(s) …”
2. On 24.09.2025, at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter was directed to be listed after Dussehra vacation. A similar request was made on 27.10.2025.
3. However, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Sriram, the Standing Counsel for the second respondent—Visakhapatnam Port Trust (VPT)—submitted that the Concession Agreement was
JS,J WP No.12820/2016
terminated on May 31, 2020. In light of this submission, the matter was scheduled for hearing on November 4, 2025.
4. Today, when the matter was again listed in the cause list, learned counsel for the petitioner, appearing online, requested time due to the misplacement of the bundle. Ms. Prathipati Navya, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Sriram, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, Visakhapatnam Port Trust, submitted that the Concession Agreement was terminated by VPT vide letter dated 13.02.2020, with the termination being effected from 31.05.2020, i.e., following the expiry of the initial termination period with an extended termination.
5. Since the VPT terminated the Concession Agreement on 13.02.2020, effective from 31.05.2020, the cause of action in the Writ Petition no longer survives for adjudication.
6. Accordingly, in light of the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date:04.11.2025 DSH