IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1121 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 11.04.2008 in W.V.M.P.No.1085 of 2007 in W.P.M.P.No.4704 of 2007 in W.P.NO.3694 OF 2007 on the ﬁle of the High Court.) Between: M/s. Star Enterprises, Rep. by its Proprietor Mohd. Yakub, S/o. Mohammed Yousuf, Aged 52 yrs, R/o. Door No. 20-1-107, Kunchebhirupia, Hyderabad-64. ...APPELLANT AND 1 M/s. United Footwear & Commercial Industries, Rep. byits Proprietors, Mohammed Yaseen, S/o. Mohammed Yousuf, Aged about 57 Years. 2 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 3 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce Department. 4 The Director General of Police, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5 Additional D.G.P. (P &L) Office of the D.G.P. Saifabad, Hyderabad, A.P. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: MR.ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI The Court delivered the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO WRIT APPEAL NO.1121 of 2008 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Mr Justice B.Prakash Rao) Heard Sri P.Venugopal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri Abhinand Kumar Shavili, learned counsel, learned Government Pleader for Home and learned Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce appearing on behalf of the respondents. At their request, the Writ Appeal itself is taken up for disposal at the admission stage. The appellant-ﬁfth respondent in the Writ Petition ﬁled this appeal, inter alia, seeking to assail the order of the learned Single Judge by making the interim order granted earlier, absolute. The sole question involved in these proceedings is to grant a contract on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that having regard to awarding of contract, the question of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not arise. There is no reason for showing any indulgence on behalf of the respondents. Neither the interim order, which has been granted earlier, or making the same as final cannot be sustained in law. Having considered the submissions made on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, we are of the view that since the proceedings, which are assailed, are only interlocutory in nature and having regard to the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration various facts and circumstances and especially all such questions as stated by the appellant need to be gone into only in the Writ Petition, it is not a ﬁt case, which requires any interference. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, having regard to the urgency expressed on either side, oﬃce is directed to post the Writ Petition “For Final Hearing” subject to “Part-Heard” before the regular Court hearing the matters on 25.09.2008. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) ________________ (R.KANTHA RAO, J) 23rd September 2008 RRB