IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2009 Dt.23.12.2009 Between: M/s. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (Finance) Mint Compound, Hyderabad … Appellants and another And Tick Business Solution Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Director T. Furquan Anzan H.No.6-2-46/100, AC Guards, Hyderabad … Respondent Counsel for the Appellants : Sri O. Manohar Reddy (Standing Counsel for A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited) Counsel for the Respondent: Sri P. Veera Reddy WRIT PETITION NO.22946 OF 2009 Between Tick Business Solution Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by its Director T. Furquan Anzan H.No.6-2-46/100, AC Guards, Hyderabad … Petitioner And M/s. Central Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited, Rep. by its Chief General Manager (Finance) Mint Compound, Hyderabad … Respondents and another Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P. Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri O. Manohar Reddy (Standing Counsel for A.P.Central Power Distribution Company Limited) THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2009 AND WRIT PETITION NO.22946 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy) This Writ Appeal arises out of order dt.12.11.2009 in W.P.M.P. No.29796 of 2009, in Writ Petition No.22946 of 2009. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal along with the Writ Appeal. The respondent in the appeal has filed the above mentioned Writ Petition questioning the demand for furnishing additional bank guarantee as a condition for continuing the contract entered into between the writ petitioner and the respondents. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, submitted that as the writ petitioner is not interested in continuing the contract, it may be permitted to discontinue the contract by directing the appellants/respondents to return the bank guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/- furnished in pursuance of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is impugned in the Writ Appeal. Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents, submitted that his clients will have no objection for the said proposal. In view of the same, without going into the merits of the case, the Writ Petition and the Writ Appeal are disposed of with the direction to the appellants/respondents to return the bank guarantee of Rs.15,00,000/- said to have been furnished in pursuance of the interim direction given in the Writ Petition, within a period of one week. On such return, the contract of the respondent/writ petitioner can be discontinued by the appellants/respondents. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition, W.A.M.P. No.3046 of 2009 in W.A. No.1461 of 2009 and W.P.M.P. No.29796 of 2009 in W.P. No.22946 of 2009, filed by the respective parties for interim relief, are disposed of as infructuous. ______________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 23.12.2009 bnr