IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9002 of 2004 Between: M/s Varun Enterprises, Electrical Contractors and Material Suppliers A partnership firm, rep,. by its Managing Partner, Smt. Y.Vani Reddy, W/o. Sri Y.Sreenivasa Reddy H.No.6-4-84, Pedda Bazar, Kothagudem, Khammam District 507 101. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Superintending Engineer, Operation Circle, APNPDCL, Khammam District. 2 The Divisional Engineer Technica Circle Office, APNPDCL, Khammam District. 3 The Assistant Divisional Operation Circle Office, APNPDCL, Khammam District. 4 M/s Venkateswara Engineering Industries, Huzurabad, Khammam District. 5 M/s Laxmi Narasimha Electrical Works, Karimnagar, Khammam District. 6 M.Bhaskar, Huzurabad, Karimnagar 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 a writ, or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 in accepting and allotting contract work for managing and maintenance of 33/11 KV substations at Wyra, Chandrugonda and Mulakalapally in Khammam District in pursuance of notification dated 24-3-2004 in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 herein inspite of the petitioner firm being the lowest bidder for all the three sub-stations (L1) as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14,19 (1) (g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P. KESAVA RAO Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : SRI O. MANOHAR REDDY(SC FOR APTRANSCO) Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : SRI E. SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute relates to a contract for maintenance of 33/11 KV substations for the year 2004-05 and iIn that view of the matter, the writ petition has become infructuous. Recording the said submission, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. ____________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J June 24, 2009. KTL/ASP