IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 24887 of 2005 Between: 1 V. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Nagabhushanam, R/o. Upplapadu, Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur Dist. 2 P. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sivaramakrishnaiah, R/o. Upplapadu, Village, Pedakakani Mandal, Guntur Dist. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Deputy Registrar Of Cooperative Societies, Guntur, Guntur Dist. 2 The Sub- Divisional Cooperative Officer-Cum-Sale Officer, Of the Andhra Bank Sc,St,BC. & Miniorities Employees, Cooperative Credit Society, Ltd, 2nd Line, Kannavarithota, Guntur, Guntur Dist. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 a writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not the respondents in not releasing the interest amount in favour of the petitioners which accrued on the deposits made by them pursuant to the public auction conducted on 18.11.2004 by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release such interest in favour of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.VENKATESWARLU POSANI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR COOPERATION The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU W.P. No. 24887 of 2005 O R D E R: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not releasing the interest amount in favour of the petitioners, which accrued on the deposits made by them pursuant to the public auction conducted on 18.11.2004 by the 2nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal and consequently to direct the respondents to release such interest amount in favour of the petitioners. It appears, pursuant to the execution proceedings for realization of surcharge amount under Section 60 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, the immovable property of the judgment-debtor was put to public auction by 2nd respondent on 18.11.2004. The petitioners jointly participated in the auction and became successful bidders by offering Rs.25.00 lakhs. They have deposited Rs.3,75,000/- being 15% of the sale consideration, on 18.11.2004 itself. Thereafter, the petitioners have deposited the balance of Rs.21,25,000/- along with stamp duty of Rs.1,32,000/-, on 2.12.2004. While that being so, the owner of the immovable property filed a writ petition before this Court, being W.P. No. 21111 of 2004, and obtained interim stay of all further proceedings of the proposed auction, on 17.11.2004. In view of the said interim orders, the property could not be conveyed in favour of the petitioners who are the successful bidders. Therefore, the amount paid by the petitioners was kept in fixed deposit in the bank. While that being so, the interim order passed in W.P. No. 21111 of 2004 was vacated on 18.8.2005. Further, the matter was carried in appeal, being W.A. No. 1593 of 2005, and the writ appeal and the writ petition were dismissed together on 31.10.2005. In view of the same, the property was transferred in favour of the petitioners on 14.9.2005 and possession was handed over on 19.9.2005. Now the grievance of the petitioners is that between 18.11.2004 and 14.9.2005 the amount was deposited with the bank and the said amount accrued certain interest and since the property was conveyed after nine months, they are entitled to the interest accrued on the amount, which was kept in fixed deposit. However, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that there is no provision for such contingency of refunding the interest accrued on the amounts deposited during the pendency of any Court litigation. The learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court to Clauses (14) and (15) of Rule 52 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Rules and submitted that whenever an auction is held and it could not be fructified thereafter, the person who has deposited the amounts in the bank is entitled for the interest accrued on such deposit and that the same analogy has to be applied in this contingency also since this contingency is not visualized by the Legislature. I am afraid I cannot agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The very provision meant for keeping the entire amount in fixed deposit whenever it is not possible to transfer the auction property in favour of the auction purchaser in view of certain contingencies including the Court cases etc. is to see that the auction purchaser may not lose the interest at least during the interregnum, if the auction is not fructified thereafter. But, that analogy cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of refunding the interest accrued in the present case during the period the amount was kept in fixed deposit i.e. from 18.11.2004 to 14.9.2005 in view of the litigation before this Court. As soon as the litigation before this Court concluded, the property was transferred and possession was handed over in favour of the petitioners. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for interest accrued on the amount, which was kept in fixed deposit during the interregnum period. The writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-7-2009. MVB.