APHC010496682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 26115/2025 Between: Venkateswara Rao Kesanakurti ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DEVASRI ROSHAN KANCHARLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING The Court made the following: -2- W.P. No.26115 OF 2025 Date of order:23.09.2025 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION No.26115 OF 2025 ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for the Municipal Administration & Urban Development, the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Finance & Planning. 2. The petitioner was entrusted with various works namely, construction of CC drains, culverts and developments in Kakinada Municipal Corporation. In compliance with the contractual requirement, the petitioner has deposited the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). Upon completion of the works, the petitioner submitted the final bills. However, they are yet to be approved. It is further submitted that the petitioner, through an application under the Right to Information Act, sought details regarding the EMD, FSD and ASD amounts retained by the respondent authorities. In reply, the respondents have admitted retaining an amount of Rs.23,17,154/-. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the mandatory cooling period of three years has already elapsed and that in spite of the repeated requests, the respondents continue to withhold the release of the EMD amounts beyond the permissible cooling period. Due to the non release -3- W.P. No.26115 OF 2025 Date of order:23.09.2025 of EMD and pending bills, the petitioner has been facing severe financial difficulties. 4. In reply, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that the EMD amounts remain with the Corporation since the petitioner’s final bills are yet to be finalised. 5. Be that as it may, with regard to the release of EMD, the fact remains that once the cooling period has expired, the respondents cannot indefinitely retain such amounts. It is the bounden duty of the respondent authorities to ensure timely release of the amounts rightfully due to the contractor. 6. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the withholding of EMD and FSD amounts beyond the cooling period is unjustified. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent is directed to verify the EMD and FSD amounts retained with it and release the same to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. No costs. 8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N BV