IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO: 506 OF 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 14/11/2007 in WP NO: 886 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal. ... APPELLANT AND 1. Mayuri Multiplex Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director Dr.T.Ramesh S/o.T.Rajesham, Kakaji Colony, Hanmakonda, Warangal. 2. The Secretary, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, Warangal. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR. P. RAGHAVENDRA REDDY FOR MR.G.VISHWESHWAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.1: MR.J.RAMACHANDRA RAO The Court made the following: Oral Judgment: (Per Shri R. Subhash Reddy, J) 1. This writ appeal is filed by the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, a body constituted under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas Development Act, 1975 being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.11.2007 passed in Writ Petition No.886 of 2005. 2. The Urban Development Authority has sold commercial plot of 1834 sq. yds. covered by Survey Nos.1143 and 1144 of Hanumakonda. The first respondent was the highest bidder in the open auction, which has offered an amount of Rs.69,69,200/- @ Rs.3,800/- per sq. yd. Though as per the terms and conditions of the tender notice, successful bidder was to pay 50% of the total bid amount on the date of auction, but on an application filed by the first respondent, appellant has passed orders on 23.6.2002 extending the facility for payment of the total amount in four installments. Subsequently, proceedings dated 11.1.2005 were issued charging an amount of Rs.5,09,132/- towards interest. The first respondent has questioned the same in the writ petition. 3. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has quashed the proceedings to the extent of charging interest on the ground that having extended the facility by passing an order dated 23.6.2002 for payment of bid amount in installments, the appellant authority is not entitled to collect interest from the first respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In this appeal, it is contended by Shri P. Raghavendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that though orders were passed on 23.6.2002 extending the facility for payment of the bid amount in installments to the successful bidder, subsequently, in the orders which were issued confirming the action, a condition was imposed for payment of interest. In that view of the matter, the first respondent is liable to pay interest. 6. We are unable to accept the said contention of the learned counsel, for the reason that, in the order dated 23.6.2002 by which the first respondent – successful bidder was permitted to pay the bid amount in installments, there was no indication for payment of any interest. It is also not in dispute that the first respondent – successful bidder has paid all the installments as per the schedule given in the proceedings dated 23.6.2002. In that view of the matter, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any merit in this writ appeal. 7. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. R. SUBHASH REDDY, J May 02, 2008 ANIL R. DAVE, CJ svs ........REGISTRAR To 1. 2.2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WA {MPL}