APHC010114172025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6152/2025 Between: 1. N VENKATA RAMANA, S/O VENKATESWARA RAO, AGEB 40 YRS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O BUTCHIYYA NAGAR MOREMPUDI, RAJAHMUNDRY RURAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT COLLECTOR, .(CIVIL SUPPLIES E.O.E.D) KAKINADA DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. . 3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN MANAGING DIRECTOR, AP CIVIL SUPPLIES CORPORATION, KANURU, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not considering the petitioners representations dt 19.08.2019, 10.06.2021 and 20.11.2023 for refund of security deposit and bank guarantee as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the respondents 2 and 3 to refund the security bank guarantee by considering the petitioners deposit and representations in the interest of justice and pass SRS,J W.P.No.6152 of 2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner dt: 19.08.2019, 10.06.2021 and 20.11.2023 for refund of the security deposit and bank guarantee, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pas Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K VENKATESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: The above writ petition is filed to declare the action of respondents 2 & 3 in not considering the representation made by the petitioner dated 19.08.2019, 10.06.2021 and 20.11.2023, for refund of security deposit and bank guarantee, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Manikanta, learned counsel representing Sri P. Hema Chandra, learned Standing Counsel appeared for respondents 2 & 3. 3. The petitioner, appointed as Stage – II Transport Contractor for transportation of essential commodities from MLS point, Rajahmundry to Fair Price Shops, Rajahmundry Urban and Rajahmundry Rural for the year 2014- 2015. The petitioner furnished a bank guarantee for Rs.3,50,000/- for one year with a grace period of one month. 4. Respondent No.2, by proceedings No.PDS 2/Movt.FG5(3)Stage II/2014-15, dated Nil.09.2014 (Ex.P5), kept the contract in abeyance. The SRS,J W.P.No.6152 of 2025 petitioner filed W.P.No.31999 of 2014 and the same was disposed of on 27.10.2014, directing the petitioner to make a representation to respondent No.2 and further directing respondent No.2 to consider the same and take a decision. Thereafter, respondent No.2 by proceedings dated 09.01.2015 (Ex.P3), terminated the Stage – II contract and forfeited the security deposit and bank guarantee. 5. Criminal proceedings were initiated vide C.C.No.226 of 2016 on the file of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alamuru. However, the petitioner is shown as not accused in the said case. Eventually, the said criminal case was ended in acquittal by Calender and Judgment dated 25.06.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to respondents 2 & 3 to refund the bank guarantee and security deposit. However, the same has not been considered. 6. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner would confine his arguments and urge to direct respondents 2 & 3 to consider the representations dated 19.08.2019, 10.06.2021 and 20.11.2023 and pass appropriate orders. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 & 3 did not refute the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. Indeed, directing the authorities to consider the representation is deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Government of India v. P.Venkatesh1,. 9. However, given the facts and circumstances of the case, without touching the merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission with the consent of both the learned counsel, directing the learned respondents 2 & 3 to consider the representations made by the petitioner dated 19.08.2019, 10.06.2021 and 20.11.2023 and pass appropriate 1 (2019) 8 SCALE 544 SRS,J W.P.No.6152 of 2025 orders, strictly as per the Rules, as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date : 13.03.2025 TVN SRS,J W.P.No.6152 of 2025 105 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION No.6152 OF 2025 Date : 13.03.2025 TVN