THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7658 of 2010 (Dated : 21-06-2010) Between: T.Ratna Prasad S/o Venkata Narasaiah Medical Colony, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District …Petitioner A n d The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7658 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by T.Ratna Prasad assailing the action of the respondents in not releasing the Earnest Money Deposit paid by the petitioner for the lease period 2006-2008. 2. A Gazette Notification No.40/2006, dated 27.05.2006 was issued by the respondents for allotment of liquor shop No.4 at Sarapaka Village of Burgampahad Mandal, Khammam District. The upset price was fixed as Rs.27,39,999/-. Open auction was conducted on 03.06.2006. Auction could not be held as there were no bidders. The Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise issued proceedings in C.R.No.11840/06/CPE/G3, dated 29.7.2006 for re-allotment of Shop No.4 to Bhadrachalam town, as Bhadrachalam shop No.9 in Ward No.9. The petitioner participated in the auction and became successful bidder. The petitioner submitted Demand Draft worth Rs.4,40,100/-, equivalent to 1/6th of the EMD. One T.Srinivasa Rao, challenged the proceedings of the auction by way of filing Writ Petition No.16423 of 2006 and secured interim stay of further proceedings in pursuance of the auction, vide order dated 7.8.2006. Due to the interim orders passed in W.P.No.16423 of 2006, the petitioner was not issued licence. Subsequently, W.P.No.16423 of 2006 came to be dismissed as infructuous as lease period has been expired. There upon, the petitioner made a representation to the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise, Kothagudem, Khammam District for return of the E.M.D amount. The 2nd respondent sent proposals to the Joint Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad for considering the request of the petitioner for refund of Demand Draft of 1/4th of E.M.D amount. There being no further action on the recommendations of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner approached this court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise appearing for the respondents. 4. The factual aspect of filing of the application by the petitioner for return of the EMD is not contradicted by the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. 5. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner for return of the EMD and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.21-06-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.7658 of 2010 (Dated : 21-06-2010)