APHC010027072026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 1792/2026 Between: 1. M/S SRI DURGA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VENKANNA BUKYA S/O. HATYA BUKYA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, D.NO.4-5-35, FLAT NO.101, VIDYANAGAR 1ST LANE, GUNTUR, STATE OF A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION APSRTC, Rep. By Managing Director RTC House, PNBS, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh -520010 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SIVALENKA RAMACHANDRA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: 1. NJS,J W.P No.1792 of 2026 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Aravala Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. representing the respondent. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that despite making representation dated 23.04.2024 for refund of Earnest Money Deposit and Security Deposit of Rs.6,35,098/-, the respondent-Corporation has not responded to the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition inter alia submits that pursuant to a work order dated 29.10.2021, the petitioner successfully completed the work entrusted to it i.e., providing Paramedical services under outsourcing arrangement. He submits that as a condition precedent for execution of the works/contract, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- towards EMD, Rs.4,19,939/- towards Security Deposit and Rs.35,159/- towards Additional Security Deposit and even though, the petitioner had completed the works without any remarks, the said amounts have not been released so far. 4. He further submits that as the petitioner’s representations’ including the one dated 23.04.2024 did not yield any result, the petitioner approached this Court. He submits that the action of the respondent in not releasing the security deposit amounts is not just or tenable. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks appropriate directions. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel, on oral instructions, states that the petitioner has not paid the last month wages to the concerned employees before completion of the works and therefore, EMD amounts were not released. However, the learned counsel has not placed any material to show that the petitioner’s representation dated 23.04.2024 was examined and orders thereon were passed. NJS,J W.P No.1792 of 2026 3 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner denies the submissions with regard to the non-payment of the wages. 7. In view of the above stated facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, instead of keeping the writ petition pending and inviting counter- affidavit, deems it appropriate to dispose of the same, with a direction to the respondent to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s representation dated 23.04.2024, as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner under proper acknowledgment. 8. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Date:22.01.2026 Ksj