THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD W.A.No. 460 of 2011 Dated. 30–06-2011 Between: K. Sridhar …Appellant Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 30-06-2011 W.A.No. 460 of 2011 ORAL ORDER: (Per: GR,J) The appeal is directed against the order dated 27- 04-2010 in W.P.M.P.No. 8883 of 2010 in W.P.No. 6882 of 2010 rejecting the appellant’s application for interim relief, of suspension of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 03-02-2010. The writ petition itself is directed against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 03-02-2010 and aggrieved by the failure of the respondents in refunding the Earnest Money deposited by the appellant pursuant to the tender notification dated 11-02-2009. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, by the tender notification dated 11-02-2009 proposed auction of an open space of 12’ x 8’ at Jadcharla Bus Station, for establishing a Bakery and Sweet Stall for a tenure of five years and on a monthly license fee of Rs. 2,79,999-99, excluding service tax. The appellant submitted his bid pursuant to the notification on 05-03-2009 and was found to be the highest bidder. Along with the bid, he deposited an amount of Rs.4,00,000-00. Thereafter by the proceedings impugned in the writ petition dated 03-02-2010, the 2nd respondent intimated the appellant that he should pay the specified amounts equivalent to six (6) months license fee and one month advance licence fee, within seven (7) days from the date of receipt of the intimation and enter into an agreement duly paying the revised stamp duty, failing which the allotment of the premises would be cancelled and the Earnest Money Deposit would be forfeited to the respondent-Corporation. The appellant has no grievance with regard to the liability to pay the specified amounts and within the time stipulated therein. What the appellant contends however is that as the site in question is the subject matter of civil litigation between the Corporation and other parties and the Civil Court had granted an interim injunction restraining the Corporation from interfering with the schedule property, the respondent-Corporation cannot handover the premises to him and therefore he sought to resile from the further process pursuant to the tender notification and his bid. However since the 2nd respondent had issued the proceedings impugned calling upon the appellant to deposit the amounts stipulated therein and intimated that the Earnest Money already deposited by the appellant would be forfeited, the appellant has approached the Court seeking appropriate relief. By way of interim relief, appellant sought suspension of the proceedings dated 03-02-2010. The above application was rejected by the learned single Judge on the ground that as the appellant is, for the reasons asserted by him, not interested in the stall, the failure to enter into an agreement would only lead to the cancellation of allotment which will not harm the appellant’s interest in the light of the stand taken by him in the writ petition and therefore there is no justification in granting interim suspension of the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 03-02-2010. Today when the matter is taken up for admission hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent— Corporation states that the injunction by the Civil Court, on the basis of which the appellant asserts the inability of the Corporation to handover possession of the schedule premises, is no longer operative as the miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondent-Corporation against the order of interim injunction granted by the trial Court, has been allowed. In the context of the fact that this appeal is against an interim order declining grant of interim suspension of the order impugned in the writ petition, it is not necessary to consider whether the appellant-writ petitioner legitimately declined to participate in the further process of entering into an agreement with the respondent- Corporation pursuant to his bid and the deposit of Earnest Money by him or whether the respondents have rightly issued the proceedings dated 03-02-2010 directing the appellant-writ petitioner to deposit the amounts on the assumption that they were entitled to handover possession of the premises to the appellant. Those are matters falling for consideration in the writ petition when it is heard substantively. The order under appeal is one declining grant of interim suspension of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 03-02-2010 whereby the Earnest Money deposited is intimated to be forfeited on the appellant-writ petitioner failing to deposit the amounts stipulated therein. That order is also an order impugned in the writ petition. By the mere order under appeal declining grant of interim suspension, the appellant does not suffer any substantive injury. The validity of the 2nd respondent’s order dated 03-02-2010 remains to be considered at the hearing of the writ petition. In any event, pending the writ petition, the appellant cannot legitimately ask for refund of the Earnest Money Deposit since the very issue whether he could resile from the further proceedings in the contract and in the facts and circumstances of the case or even as to the maintainability of the writ petition fall to be considered at the hearing of the writ petition. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits. The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM __________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated: 30-06-2011 Pvks/*