IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10293 of 2008 Between: Amberpet Quresh/Traders mutually Aided Society rep byits Secretary Md. hashim Qureshi S/o raj Md. Qureshi aged 55 years R/o 16-4-747, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh rep byis Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Secretariat, hdyerabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep byits Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Andhra Pradesh Meat Developement Corporation Limitd, rep by its managing Director, Shantinagar, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the tender notiﬁcation No. 03/APMDCL/MAP/2008 dt 27-2-2008, is without Jurisdiction, highly unwarranted, highly arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unsustainable, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10293 OF 2008 ORDER : This writ petition is ﬁled seeking a Mandamus declaring the alleged action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the tender notiﬁcation dated 27.2.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. Though the petitioner sought for suspension of the impugned tender notice, no such order has been granted by this Court. When the mater was taken up for consideration on 6.9.2008, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent represented that the impugned tender notiﬁcation dated 27.2.2008 was cancelled on 14.5.2008 and therefore nothing survives for adjudication on merits. Since the learned counsel for the petitioner was not present on that day, the matter is directed to be listed today for orders. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that the impugned tender notice was already cancelled, no further enquiry is necessary and accordingly the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 08.09.2008 gbs