IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14624 of 2009 Between: 1 A. Hanumanthu, S/o. Anjinappa, Hindu, R/O. D.No. 19-2-9, Yellamma Temple Street, Hindupur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. 2 K. Subramanyam, S/o. K. Durgappa, Hindu, R/O. D.No. 19-2-9, Yellamma Temple Street, Hindupur Village and Mandal, Anantapur District. .... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, Anantapur, Anantapur District. 2 The Commissioner, Hindupur Municipality, Anantapur District. ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing Notification in Rc.no. 3400-2003-A1 dated 25- 5-2009 calling applications from the S.C., S.T. and Physically Handicapped Candidates for leasing out shopping complex at Parigi Bus Stand, belonging to Hindupur Municipality, Anantapur District without considering Hon'ble High Court direction passed in WP No. 5079/2006 dated 12-12-2008 and further representation of the petitioners dated 8-7-2009 is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to permit the petitioners to participate the auction issued in Rc.No. 3400/2003-A1 dated 25-5-2009 without insisting deposit amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and pass such other order and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : KOTHAPALLI RAM MOHAN CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14624 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in issuing the Notification Rc.No. 3400-2003-A1 dated 25.5.2009 calling applications from the SC, ST and Physically Handicapped candidates for leasing out shopping complex at Parigi Bus Stand belonging to Hindupur Municipality, Anantapur District, as arbitrary and illegal. The only contention raised by the petitioners is that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in Writ Petition No.5079 of 2006 dated 12.12.2008, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent/Municipality seeking exemption of payment of goodwill and while the said representation is still pending, the respondent/Municipality is not justified in issuing the impugned Notification insisting upon payment of the Non Refundable Deposit amount (goodwill). I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. Writ Petition No.5079 of 2006 was filed by the petitioners herein challenging the action of the respondent/Municipality in insisting upon making Non Refundable Deposit amount (goodwill) while submitting their bids, pursuant to the tender notification dated 28.2.2006. This Court, after hearing both the parties held that the Municipality is empowered to insist for Non Refundable Deposit amount (goodwill) under Rule 12 A of the Statutory Rules and therefore, the impugned notice dated 28.2.2006 cannot be held to be erroneous. However, it was left open to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent/Municipality seeking exemption of payment of the goodwill. The petitioner states that they made such a representation on 8.7.2009 seeking exemption. However, much prior to that, i.e., on 25.5.2009 the impugned tender notice was issued. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is clear that as on today, there is no exemption in favour of the petitioners from payment of the Non Refundable Deposit amount. Hence, the impugned tender notification cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal on any ground whatsoever, much less the same can be held to be contrary to the order of this Court in Writ Petition No.5079 of 2006. Under the circumstances, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the respondent/Municipality to consider the representation of the petitioners dated 08.7.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J 22nd July 2009 Note:- Issue CC in 2 days (B/o) RAR THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 14624 of 2009 DATED : 22-7-2009