THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11523 OF 2009 DATED 19TH JULY, 2011 BETWEEN V.Tulsiram …Petitioner And The Depot Manager, APSRTC Tandur Depot, Ranga Reddy District and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11523 OF 2009 O R D E R The petitioner was awarded the contract of outsourcing of Tyre Disc Rotation and preparation work at the Tandur Depot of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) for a period of two years from 01.03.2008 to 28.02.2010 under the APSRTC’s allotment order dated 10.12.2007. The said contract was terminated enforcing forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit under proceeding dated 28.05.2009 on the ground that the petitioner had violated items 11 and 50 of the deed of agreement. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present case. This Court, by order dated 12.06.2009, taking note of the fact that the petitioner’s request for supplying certain documents had not been properly considered by the APSRTC while passing the impugned order, suspended the same pending further orders. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner submitted his reply to the APSRTC’s Show Cause Notice dated 24.03.2009 under his letter dated 25.05.2009. It appears that the APSRTC did not heed the contents of this reply on the ground that the petitioner had failed to submit his explanation within the time stipulated in the Show Cause Notice. Be that as it may, pursuant to the interim order granted by this Court the petitioner was permitted to execute the work as per the contract. The term of the contract was two years which expired by the end of February, 2010. Thus, challenge as to the termination of the contract no longer survives for consideration. The only aspect that remains is as to the forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit. The impugned order dated 28.05.2009 reflects that the petitioner’s explanation was not considered at all on the ground that it was submitted beyond the stipulated date. Violation of the principles of nature justice is therefore manifest. When the APSRTC wanted to visit financial liability upon the petitioner, it necessarily had to afford him a reasonable opportunity of being heard before taking such decision. Further, once the petitioner executed the contract in its entirety by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court, it would no longer be open to the APSRTC to withhold his security deposit. The impugned order enforcing the forfeiture of the petitioner’s security deposit is therefore unsustainable. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the impugned proceeding dated 28.05.2009. The APSRTC shall consequently release the petitioner’s security deposit within two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Miscellaneous petitions filed in the writ petition shall stand dismissed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ---------------------------- SANJAY KUMAR, J. 19TH JULY, 2011. PGS/VGSR