IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24560 of 2004 Between: Orissa Power Consortium Ltd., Hyderabad. … Petitioner And State of A.P., through Principal Secretary Energy Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.V. Narasimham Counsel for the respondents: Addl. Advocate General The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24560 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “… Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus, restraining the first respondent from taking any action pursuant to letter No.17826/Power-I(1)/1994, dated 01.10.2004 and letter No.17826/Pr.I(1)/2004-3, dated 27.10.2004 for canceling the Jalaput and Chitrakonda Hydro Electric Power Projects awarded to the petitioner and further direct the first respondent to forthwith approve and finalize the power purchase agreement (PPA) submitted by the petitioner for Jalaput and Chitrakonda Hydro Electric Power Projects or alternately permit the petitioner for entering into Power Purchase Agreement to sell the power to Power Trading Corporation/third parties and permit petitioner to proceed with implementation of both the projects as per terms of MOU dated 07.11.1994 and Minutes of Meeting dated 04.08.2004.” At the hearing, Sri C.V. Narasimham, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client informed him that there is a proposal for an out of Court settlement between it and the respondents and that in the hope of such a settlement it wanted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to it to avail its remedies in the event the settlement is not reached. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents denied existence of any such proposal. It is not necessary for this Court to give a finding on this aspect because the petitioner on its volition seeks withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty to avail its remedies. The writ petition is according dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn, WPMP.No.32167 and 32168 of 2004 are also dismissed. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 14.06.2010. ES