IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 26796 of 2006 Between: Tamalampudi Rama Reddy S/o.Chinna Reddy R/o.Anaparthi , East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Executive Engineer, panchayat Raj Division, Jail Road, Rajahmundry,-533103, East Godavari District 2 The Dy.Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Sub Division, East Godavari 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 particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not returning the deposit amounts of Rs.44,692/- forthwith to the petitioner in respect of the deductions made from the bills of the works entrusted by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings bearing No.DB.D1/155/1994-95 dated 25.10.1994 as illegal, arbitrary, and unjust and consequently direct the respondents forthwith to return the deposit amounts of the petitioner along with interest @ 24/% on the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.N.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for the respondents. 2. It is stated that the 1st respondent-Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Division, Rajahmundry entrusted five works in the Gram Panchayat limits of Anaparthi to the petitioner herein to be executed on nomination basis vide his proceedings No.DB.D1/155/94-95, dated 25-10-1994, and the petitioner executed the said works but bills have been paid after deducting the deposit amount of Rs.44,692/- and the said amount has not been refunded so far and therefore petitioner got issued a legal notice, dated 09-06-2006, demanding to pay the said deposit amount along with interest. It is stated that no reply has been given for the said notice, dated 09-10-2006, though the same has been received. Hence, the present Writ Petition. 3. If the said amount is not in dispute there cannot be any justification on the part of the respondents in not returning the same. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, respondents are directed to take appropriate decision and intimate the action taken pursuant to the notice issued by the petitioner, dated 09-10-2006, in accordance with law. 4. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 29th February, 2008 Tsy To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}