IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10004 of 2007 Between: M/s.ICOMM Tele Limited, a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 Regd.Office at Road No.2, Trendset Towers, Banjar Hills, Hyderabad-34 rep., by its Senior Manager (Legal) Ch.T.Sreerama Murthy. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 the Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P.Limited, (A Government of Andhra Pradesh Undertaking and subsidiary Company of the Transmission Corporation of andhra Pradesh Limited) D.No.19-3- 13(M), Renigunta Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. 2 M/s.Shirdi Sai Electricals F-10, Industrial Estate, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....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 an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in awarding the contract in respect of Package in SIP 163 relating to the work of conversion of existing LT Network into High Voltage distribution system in Chittoor-IV Division, Chittoor District notified vide tender notice No.CGM/Projects & RAC/11/2006 dated 15-11- 2006 to the 2nd respondent vide the impugned letter of acceptance No.CGM/Project/DE/Proj/ADE-P2/TPT/SIP-163/06-07/D.No.412/07 dated 12-04-2007 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the terms of tender, offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India and issue a consequential direction to the 1st respondent to award the contract to the petitioner and pass such other or further order or orders as are deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. D.V.SITARAMAMURTHY Counsel for the Respondents : MR. M.SREERAMULU REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10004 OF 2007 ORDER : It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause in the writ petition does not survive and therefore no further adjudication is necessary. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 25.11.2008 gbs THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.10004 OF 2007 25.11.2008