IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.25693 of 2014 BETWEEN Essen Adz, an adfvertising firm/company.
AND ... PETITIONER The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others ...RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard.
2. There appears to be a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 relating to which petitioner has stated to have made two representations, dated 30.11.2014 and 18.11.2013, to respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. Since appropriate action based on the said representations is not taken, the petitioner has approached this court.
3. On the earlier occasion, learned Government Pleader for Information Technology has taken notice and on the last date of hearing, learned Government Pleader informed the court that respondent No.2 had conducted the meeting between the petitioner and respondent No.3 on 11.09.2014 and most of the issues have been resolved.
4. When this writ petition again came up on 18.09.2014, it was noted that respondent No.3 though served, nobody is appearing for respondent No.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also informed the court that apart from the issues already resolved, one more aspect relating to printing of advertisement receipts is yet to be resolved. Hence, on 18.09.2014, learned Government Pleader was requested to appraise respondent No.2 to resolve such minor issue pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3.
5. It is reported to day by the learned government pleader that respondent No.2 has called for a meeting between the petitioner and respondent No.3, which is scheduled for tomorrow.
6. Since appropriate steps are already taken up by respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the major issues pending between the petitioner and respondent No.3 are already resolved, in my view, no purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to conduct the meeting as per schedule and then try and resolve the pending issue also. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 24, 2014 Note: -
Furnish copy by ten days.
{B/o} LMV