IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5749 of 2010 Between: E.Madhusudhan Rao ..... Petitioner AND 1.The Superintendent Engineer, Kakatiya Thermal Power Station, Chelpur, Warangal District and 2 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Seetharam Chaparla Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: Mr.K.Chidambaram Counsel for Respondent No.3: --- The Court made the following: Order: In this Writ Petition, the grievance, in short, of the petitioner is that despite notice, dated 2nd March, 2010, respondent No.2 has not been responding to the same. The petitioner entered into a contract with respondent No.3 for supply of certain machinery to be used by the latter, as a subcontractor of respondent No.2, in the work pertaining to Kakatiya Thermal Power Station represented by respondent No.1. Though it is conceded by Sri Seetharam Chaparla, learned Counsel for the petitioner, that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent No.1, still he contends that as the machinery belonging to his client is held up with respondent No.1, the said authority is bound to respond to the notice issued by the petitioner. Without going into the merits of the claim of the petitioner for return of the machinery, it will suffice to dispose of the Writ Petition directing respondent No.1 to issue appropriate reply to notice, dated 02-03-2010, sent by the petitioner, if the same has been received by the former. Such a reply shall be sent to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7414 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 12th March, 2010 lur