RACHARLA NAGESH SANJEEVARAYUDU vs THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION — WP/14543/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Uncontested--WITHDRAWN on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: APHC010281452026

Filing Number

WP/22536/2026

Filing Date

14-May-2026

Registration No

WP/14543/2026

Registration Date

14-May-2026

Judge

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Coram

Tuhin Kumar Gedela

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

WP ( 28 )

Sub-Category

EDUCATION (MISC.MATTERS) ( 13 )

Judicial Branch

WRIT Section

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--WITHDRAWN

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.RACHARLA NAGESH SANJEEVARAYUDU

    Adv. V R REDDY KOVVURI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF AP Advocate - GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION

  2. 2.The Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan,

  3. 3.The Director,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Tuhin Kumar GedelaView PDF

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on May 15, 2026. Petitioner Racharla Nagesh Sanjeevarayudu, who was disqualified from a government egg supply tender (NIT No. 50/2026) for allegedly failing to comply with bank guarantee requirements despite providing one, sought a mandamus to permit his participation. The court granted the petitioner's counsel permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under law, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-May-2026

    Admission (Education )

    Tuhin Kumar Gedela

  4. 14-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/14543/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn on May 15, 2026. Petitioner Racharla Nagesh Sanjeevarayudu, who was disqualified from a government egg supply tender (NIT No. 50/2026) for allegedly failing to comply with bank guarantee requirements despite providing one, sought a mandamus to permit his participation. The court granted the petitioner's counsel permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue appropriate remedies under law, with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case