IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELVETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 6 of 2010 Between: Pilaka Surya Sadasiva Rao, s/o Ramakrishna Rao Aged about 55 years, Social worker, r/o 30-4-11, Krishna Gardens, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER V/s. The Steel Authority of India Limited Represented by its Chairman & Managing Director, Ispath Bhavan, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110 003 & Anr. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri C. S. Surya Prakash Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.Pravinder Rao Sri J.Prabhakar Rao The Division Bench made the following : (Order follows 2nd page) THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 8 6 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: {Per the Hon’ble Smt.Justice T.Meenakumari} The writ petition has been filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing tender notification dated 02-12-2009 vide tender notification No.03/01/40 for the tenders for stevedoring, shore clearance, transportation, stacking and wagon loading of imported coking coal/Non coking coal and metallurgical coke at Visakhapatnam Port in spite of the indefinite strike call issued by Visakhapatnam Harbour and Port Workers Union in pursuance of the call given by the five Major Federations operating in Port Sector and in rescheduling it vide circular dated 18-12-2009 and proceeding with it in such a situation as highly illegal, arbitrary, malafide against the interest of the respondent corporation and against the interest of the nation at large and consequently to direct the respondents to defer the tender proceedings for such purpose till the indefinite strike called by the Visakhapatnam Harbour and Port Workers Union is resolved and to pass such other suitable orders as this court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 2. When the matter came up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner is not pressing the writ petition and sought leave to avail such remedies as may be available to the petitioner in law. 3. Leave is accordingly granted. 4. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. It is needless to observe that if the petitioner avails any such remedy, the same shall be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by the dismissal of this writ petition. _____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________________ Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao APRIL 12, 2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOORTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 8 6 OF 2010 Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon'ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari) Circulation Entry No. 8 8 Date: 12-04-2010 COMPUTER No. 43 Court Master: I s L