HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MAIN CASE No: W.P.No.12579 of 2010 PROCEEDING SHEET SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE 01) 04-06- 2010 CVNR, J WP.No.12579 of 2010 Rule Nisi. Call for records. Notice returnable in four weeks. ______________________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J WPMP.No.15835 of 2010 This is an application to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of notification published in District Gazette No.41, dated 27.05.2010, in so far as it pertains to the shops notified at Serial Nos.108 and 109 of Ponnur Municipality, Guntur District, is concerned. The petitioner is intending to participate in tender process in pursuance of the impugned notification for grant of A-4 licenses in respect of Ponnur shops. The petitioner’s grievance is that contrary to Rule 5 (2) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005 (for short “the Rules”) and the previous practice being followed by the respondents, the impugned notification has failed to specify the area/locality in which the shops are proposed to be located. According to the petitioner, unless the area/locality is specified, it is not possible for the tenderers to make a reasonable assessment of the demand in order to offer their bid. Learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise, who has taken notice for the respondents, sought to support the notification by stating that under Rule 4 of CVNR, J (contd…) shops to be established in an area/locality and that shops to be established in an area/locality and that it is not incumbent upon them to specify the particular area/locality as all the shops are sought to be located within the municipal area of Ponnur. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the prima facie opinion that under Rule 5 (2) (i) of the Rules, the respondents are bound to indicate the name of the area/locality, where the shops are proposed to be located. The petitioner specifically pleaded that the respondents have understood the said Rule in the abovementioned manner as evident from the notifications issued by them for the years 2005-06, 2006-08 and 2008-10, wherein either the name of the area or the ward number of the locality, as the case may be, has been specifically indicated. Having regard to the mandatory nature of the Rule, I am of the prima facie view that it is incumbent upon the respondents to indicate the area/locality in which the shops are proposed to be located in order to give an opportunity to the tenderers to make a realistic assessment of the likely revenue which they are going to get and submit their bids in accordance therewith. In view of the same, I find elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour of the petitioner to grant an interim direction to the respondents not to hold auction respect of Ponnur shops in pursuance of the impugned notification pending further orders. Ordered accordingly. However, this order does not preclude the respondents from proceeding with the auction after notifying the area/locality, in which the shops are proposed to be located. CVNR, J (contd…) List the WPMP on 15-06-2010 for counter by respondents. _____________________ C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE The learned single Judge found that respondents 2 to 4 in the Writ Petition were not eligible to be promoted and they had been promoted although they were ineligible. Respondents 2 to 4 have, now, filed an appeal with a delay of 164 days. Let the respondents file their counter to the application for condonation of delay in filing the said appeal. There has been no stay of the judgment of the learned single Judge But the SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE learned single Judge. But the judgment of the learned single Judge is not being implemented from 29-12--2004. On last occasion also, we have told the learned Counsel for the appellant that the judgment needs to be implemented, and today, she has produced a copy of the letter received by Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, Advocate. This letter is nothing but an attempt to defeat the judgment of this Court in avoiding to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion. The relevant portion of this letter reads as under: ‘Once the vacancies a r e cleared, we are interested to consider the case of Mr.D.Harinatha Reddy, as it was submitted to the Court. Hence, we request you to put forth (P.T.O.,) BN, J & GC, J (Contd…) the above information before t h e Court and request learned Judge to give time up to March, 2006. We request you to use your good office to appraise the Court and to protect Bank’s interest’. This letter merely says that once the vacancies were cleared, the Bank was interested to consider the case. It nowhere shows any urgency to implement the order of the Court. Vacancies can be cleared after decade or two decades. Therefore, we feel that the appellant in this appeal is, prima facie, in Contempt of this Court. Issue notice to the appellant-Sri P.Gopala Krishna, Chairman, Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank Chittoor SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Chittoor, as to why Contempt Proceedings be not initiated against him. He shall file counter within two weeks and shall remain present on the next date of hearing. List on 21-03-2006. ​______________ 07-03- 2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 BN, J & SAR, J Application No.122 of 2006 This application has been filed by respondent No.3-applicant seeking extension of time and also seeking prayer that the respondents should give a set off fo r Rs.93,31,706/- (Rupees ninety three lakhs thirty one thousand seven hundred and six only) which according to him are the losses suffered by him. That is a matter, which will have to be gone into before taking a decision on the question whether the petitioner suffered any losses and if so whether he SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE suffered any losses and if so, whether he is entitled to recover those losses in these proceedings. Therefore, at this stage, we cannot allow the prayer of the applicant that he should be permitted to deposit only Rs2,06,68,294/- (Rupees two crores six lakhs sixty eight thousand two hundred and ninety four only) and not Rs.3.17 crores. At this stage, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has no objection if the property is put to fresh auction, but it should not be taken as adjudication of his claim to the compensation and losses. BN, J & SAR, J (Contd…) This issue will be decided after a counter is filed to the present application. As far as the extension of time is concerned, the request of the applicant is rejected and the official liquidator is at liberty to put the property to fresh auction as the applicant has also conceded that fresh auction may be allowed. The applicant also will be entitled to participate in the fresh auction. The Earned Money Deposit (EMD) already paid by the applicant to the extent of Rs.17 lakhs, when the property was put to auction earlier, may be returned to the applicant. ​ ______________ 03-02-2006 lur SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE SL. NO. DATE ORDER OFFICE NOTE