IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3126 of 2009 Between: M/s.Clean & Green Social Service Organisation, having its Regd.office at h.No.2-1-21/7/1, Gollakeri, Sadasivpet Medak District, rep.by its Chairman, MR.Kapilshwar Poddar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh STate Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), RTC X Roads Musheerabad,Hyderabad 2 The Regional /Divisional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar 3 The Dy.Chief Traffic Manager, office of the Depot Manager Andhra Pradesh STate Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), Mahaboobnagar Region, Mahaboobnagar .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.BANGINATI NARENDER Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.V.PADMANABHA RAO FOR SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following: ORDER: In this Writ Petition, the grievance of the petitioner- Organisation, in short, is that its security deposit amounts lying with the respondents are not being refunded despite expiry of license period and calling for fresh tenders. The petitioner was granted a license on 01-11-2006 to maintain Group “B” Bus Station in Mahaboobnagar (Old and New Bus Stations), Devarabhadra, Nawabpet and Koilkonda regions. While so, Show Cause Notice dated 29-05-2008 was issued by respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioner violated certain contractual terms and the petitioner was called upon to submit a reply within seven days. According to the petitioner, it submitted representation dated 20-06-2008 under an acknowledgment but no final order has been passed thereafter. The petitioner claimed that it sent letter dated 23-09-2008 to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to extend/renew the license for a further period of two years or refund the security deposit. The grievance of the petitioner is that neither the license period is extended nor security deposit has been refunded. The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that since the petitioner failed to carry on some of its obligations under the contract, it attracted certain penalties and therefore, its deposits have not been refunded. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the penalties levied on the petitioner were already paid, and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to withhold its security deposit. Since this is a disputed question of fact, it is not possible for this Court to give a conclusive finding thereon. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to pass an appropriate order on the impugned Show Cause Notice, after considering the explanation said to have been submitted by the petitioner. If it is found that the petitioner is entitled to the refund of any amount after adjusting the electricity charges, water charges and the penalties, if any, imposed on it, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall ensure that the said amounts are refunded to the petitioner. They shall complete this exercise within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.4051 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 5th June, 2008 LUR