IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.8056 of 2009 Between: A. Srinivas S/o. A. Bhoomaiah Old Bus Stand, Siddipet, H.N. 4-1-68, Bhoigally, Siddipet, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, Medak Region, Siddipet, Medak District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in terminating the contract of ATB agency vide Proceedings No. 01/804(1)/2009 RM: MR dt. 1-4-2009 is arbitrary and illegal and also violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and set aside the order of termination and to permit the petitioner to continue his agency till the expiry of the agreement or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.H.R.CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the termination of contract of ATB agency of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that he entered into an agreement with the second respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region on 13.05.2007 for a period of three years commencing from 13.05.2007 to 12.05.2010 for reservation and sale of tickets for long distance services at old Bus Stand, Siddipet and that he has paid Rs.60,200/- towards security deposit and commenced his business from 13.05.2007. While so, the second respondent issued show cause notice dated 18.02.2009 for termination of ATB agency of the petitioner on the ground that he had given his ATB agency in sub contract to one conductor of Siddipet depot by name Sri Ch.Bhoomaiah, who again subleased the agency to one Mr.K.Raju on a monthly salary of Rs.2,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he had given explanation, the second respondent without considering the same, passed the impugned order dated 01.04.2009 terminating his agency and also forfeiting his security deposit. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. Even though the writ petition is filed questioning the termination of ATB Agency of the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to restrict his prayer to the extent of refund of security deposit, which was forfeited by the impugned order. The second respondent-Regional Manager, APSRTC, Medak Region appeared before this Court and stated that they are going to return the security deposit of the petitioner within one week. Recording the above said statement of the second respondent, the writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. N.V.RAMANA, J Dated 08.06.2009 va