M/s.J.S.Engineering Works v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA WRIT PETITION NO : 18774 of 2008 TAMADA Between: M/s.J.S.Engineering Works, . .Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Guntur-II Depot and another. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO.18774 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed the Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in calling for the tenders for supply of Sramikas by outsourcing without terminating the contract with the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to release the security deposit amount and arrears in favour of the petitioners. 2) The learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mr.Madhav Reddy, submits that the alleged tender notice relates to the year 2008 and in view of the interim orders in W.P.M.P. No.24441 of 2008 passed by this Court, no further orders need be passed in this writ petition. 3) In the light of the said statement, in my considered view, this writ petition has become infructuous. 4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) September 2, 2009 KSH
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 4) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.