THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.24143 OF 2005 Dt:11-11-2010. BETWEEN: THE CLARIXXON TECHNOLOGIES LTD REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.M.V.S.PAPAJI RAO CAMP OFFICE AT NO.402, 47-2-9, GANDHIPURAM-1, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT .. PETITIONER AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, A.P.CENTRAL POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD., SINGARENI BHAVAN, RED HILLS, HYDERABAD AND ANOTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.24143 OF 2005 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in refunding the amount of Rs.4,33,260/- with interest at the rate of 12 % paid towards Additional Security Deposit/Additional Consumption Deposit as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.4,33,260/- together with interest @ 12 % per annum. It appears the petitioner-company was a tenant of premises bearing Plot No.13, Cyber Heights, HUDA Layout, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and it utilised the electricity connection bearing Nos.A5-9583, A5-9584, A5- 9585, A5-9586, A5-9587 and A5-9590. The said electricity connections were originally in the name of the owner of the building. However, they were transferred in the name of the petitioner-company w.e.f. 8-9-2001 and was continued upto 6-7-2002. For the purpose of transferring the said connections in the name of the petitioner-company, it was directed to make certain Additional Security Deposits/Additional Consumption Deposits as under: A5-9583 paid ACD of Rs. 53,052 A5-9584 paid ACD of Rs. 99,495 A5-9585 paid ACD of Rs. 45,498 A5-9586 paid ACD of Rs. 74,754 A5-9587 paid ACD of Rs. 56,049 A5-9590 paid ACD of Rs.1,04,412 TOTAL Rs.4,33,260 Thereafter, the said electricity connections were transferred in the name of the original owner of the building. Now the grievance of the petitioner- company is that though there are no electricity dues payable by it or any other arrears standing against the petitioner-company during the subsistence of the lease from 8.9.2001 to 6.7.2002 the deposits made by it are not being refunded. There is no necessity to go into all the details of the case. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contended that the requirement for refund of the said amount is the production of original receipts showing the deposits of the said amounts as well as No Objection Certificate from the original owner of the building. These two requisite conditions were not complied with by the petitioner-company. Therefore the deposits were not refunded and the petitioner-company cannot blame the respondents for not refunding the said deposits. However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company states that those receipts showing the deposits of Additional Security Deposits/Additional Consumption Deposits are not traceable and the owner of the building may not cooperate with the petitioner- company for the purpose of issuing a No Objection Certificate to the petitioner-company to claim the refunds of deposits. Under those circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and since there is no dispute as to the deposits made by the petitioner-company during the subsistence of the connections in the name of the petitioner- company and that thereafter it was transferred in the name of the original owner of the building the petitioner-company is entitled for refund of the deposits. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to refund the said deposits of Rs.4,33,260/- or as claimed by the petitioner-company i.e. Rs.3,54,093/- on executing an indemnity bond. The respondents shall not insist upon No Objection Certificate from the owner of the building, which has no relevance in view of the peculiar facts of the case. No order as to costs. Dt:11-11-2010. ( C.V.RAMULU, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO.24143 OF 2005 DT: 11-11-2010.