APHC010561012014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] MONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5509/2014 Between: 1. M/S SRI SAI RAM TRANSPORT HANDLING & TRANSPORT, CONTRACTORS FOR FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND STATE ORGANISATIONS, REPRESENTED BY Y.NAGESWARA RAO S/O SURYANARAYANA, AGE 48 YEARS, D.NO.6A.9-11, WAKERS COLONY, PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, WAREHOUSING SADAN, 2ND FLOOR, BEHIND GANDHI BHAVAN, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD - 500001, REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. A V G MADHAVA RAO The Court made the following: 2 ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri P. Durga Prasad, learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner and Sri A.V.G. Madhava Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APSWC. 2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not refunding the Earnest Money Deposit of the petitioner which was paid along with Tenders in pursuance of Tender Notification dated 16-01-2012, is contrary to law, unjust and it violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India, consequently direct the respondent to refund the Earnest Money Deposit to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that it participated in the bidding process for Handling and Transport and was declared as L1 Bidder at the State Warehousing, Palakol. It is submitted that the tenders were required to be opened at 3:30 p.m. on 08.02.2012, whereas the Managing Director of the Respondent Corporation did not communicate anything to the Writ Petitioner regarding the outcome of the tender process. 4. The Petitioner would submit that a report was received on 20.12.2012 by way of an express phonogram, stating that the rates quoted by the Writ Petitioner in the open Tender enquiry dated 08.02.2012 for Handling and Transport were approved, and that the Petitioner was required to attend the office to execute the H&T Agreement on or before 31.12.2012. In response to this communication, the Petitioner addressed a letter dated 22.12.2012, stating that the Tender would become invalid beyond the specified period and that the rates quoted in February 2012 were not workable as of that date i.e., by 31.12.2012. 3 5. Para 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would indicate that prices have increased. It is further submitted that the price of diesel alone has increased by Rs. 5.60 per litre. 6. In this view of the matter, the Petitioner requested the Respondents to refund the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. Since the said amount was not refunded, the Writ Petition has assailed the inaction on the part of the Respondents in refunding the Earnest Money Deposit by filing the present Writ Petition. 7. The Respondents filed Counter-Affidavit on 25.07.2025, contending that an Award Letter had been issued as per the Standard Tender Procedure to the L1 Bidder, namely the Writ Petitioner, for execution of the Agreement. It is also stated that Interim Stay Orders had been passed against the tender by the Hon’ble High Court in W.P.Nos.7943 and 7944 of 2012, filed by the unsuccessful bidders. In view of these Interim Stay Orders, the Corporation refrained from issuing the Award Letter to avoid contempt of Court. 8. The above averments would clearly indicate that the reason for non- issuance of the Award Letter in February or March 2012 was due to the operation of the Interim Orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. However, the date of the Interim Orders has not been mentioned. It is also submitted that both the Writ Petitions were eventually dismissed on 04.09.2012. It is noticed by the Court that even after the dismissal of both Writ Petitions, the Respondents did not exhibit due diligence in issuing the Award Letter to the Writ Petitioner immediately. 9. In these circumstances, the plea raised by the Writ Petitioner that the tender for Handling and Transport issued in the month of February became unworkable by December 2012 is justified, inasmuch as the price of diesel was increased by Rs. 5.60 per litre during the interregnum, and the nature of the contract to be handled by the Petitioner namely, handling and transport of foodgrains, fertilizers and allied material in and around the State Warehouse, 4 and the expenditure that may be incurred on transport would be extremely substantial. 10. When the conduct of the Respondents is analyzed, it is evident that the Respondents did not address any communication to the Petitioner for more than three months after the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Therefore, the demand of the Writ Petitioner for return of the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.50,000/- vide letter dated 20.12.2012 is quite justified. The Petitioner has exhibited due diligence by immediately demanding refund of the Earnest Money Deposit on the very next date after the Petitioner received the Notice from the Respondents. 12. In the above premise, the Respondents are liable to return the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at a reasonable rate of 8% per annum within a period of four (04) weeks from today. 13. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs. 14. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. ______________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.11.2025 DSV 5 161 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 5509/2014 17.11.2025 DSV 6 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI MAIN CASE No. WRIT PETITION NO: 5509/2014 PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. No DATE ORDER Office Note 06. 17.11.2025 GRKP, J Writ Petition is allowed. (vide separate order) ___________ GRKP, J DSV 7