Sri Babu Naidu v. Kanikapam
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Cause title
Between: Sri Babu Naidu S/o. B. Ramachandra Naidu R/o. Kakaralapalli Village, Kanipakam Post, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER
AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Endowments Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. 3 Sri Swayambhu Sri Varasiddi Vinayaka Swamy Vari Devasthanam, Rep. by its Executive Officer-Cum-Jt. Commissioner, Office at Kanikapam Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ or direction or order more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Tender Notification No. R.C.No. A1/461/2009 dt. 26-2-2009 inviting bidders to participate in the Open auction to be held on 20-3- 2009 without disposing of petitioner's applications dt. 4-11-2008, 23-11- 2008 and 5-2-2009 as being illegal, and arbitrary apart from being violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India as well as the Principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to direct the respondents to consider petitioners applications dt. 4-11- 2008, 23-11-2008 and 5-2-2009 for extension of licence period from 30- 3-2009 to 30-6-2009 and set aside the impugned tender notification issued by the 3rd respondent dt. 26-2-2009 and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.HEMACHANDRA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: G.P. FOR ENDOWMENTS Counsel for the Respondent No.3: MR. V.T.M. PRASAD The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU
WRIT PETITION NO.5218 OF 2009
ORAL ORDER:
The writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents issuing Tender Notification No.RC No.A1/461/2009, dated 26.2.2009 inviting bidders to participate in the open auction to be held on 20.3.2009, without disposing of petitioner’s applications dated 4.11.2008, 23.11.2008 and 5.2.2009, as being illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to consider petitioner’s applications dt.4.11.2008, 23.11.2008 and 5.2.2009 for extension of licence period from 30.3.2009 to 30.6.2009 and set aside the impugned tender notification issued by the 3rd respondent dated 26.2.2009. Heard the learned Counsel for both sides. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent – temple has produced a communication dt.20.2.2009 showing that the case of the petitioner was considered and the extension of licence sought by the petitioner was rejected. In view of the same, nothing survives in the Writ petition for further adjudication. The Writ Petition is, therefore, closed. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from challenging the communication dt.20.2.2009 and workout his remedies as available under law. No costs. _____________ (C.V. Ramulu, J)
19.3.2009
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.