IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA & THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.34610 and 34719 of 2014 BETWEEN M/s. Siri Engineering Contractors.
AND ... PETITIONER The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others.
...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. B. CHANDRA SEKHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP TRANSPORT (AP) The Court made the following:
COMMON ORDER:
Heard.
2. Petitioner – firm, which is a construction company, is engaged in carrying out civil contracts. It is stated that the petitioner has taken civil contract work in the year 2013 at Bhimsingh, Vizinagaram District for construction of Railway flyover and as such, certain construction machinery was kept at the said site. While so, the third respondent inspected the site and under check report bearing No.699074 dated 12.07.2013 directed the concerned to bring the construction equipment to RTA Office, Vizianagaram. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed WP.No.21466 of 2013, which was disposed of on 24.07.2013 directing the second respondent to cause verification. It is stated that the second respondent inspected the premises, verified the machinery and opined that the said vehicles are not construction equipment.
3. Petitioner, further, submits the work at the aforesaid site was completed and petitioner was allotted another work at Mudkhed, Maharashtra. As such, petitioner filed a detailed representation dated 24.10.2014 before the second respondent seeking permission to shift the said machinery from Vizianagaram to Maharashtra State. Aggrieved by inaction on the said representation, the present writ petition is filed.
4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that the second respondent would consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to examine the representation of the petitioner and then take appropriate decision in the matter expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 17, 2014 DSK