THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.11271 of 2011 BETWEEN: Ch. Sarotham Reddy …. PETITIONER And 1. Andhra Pradesh State Warehousing Corporation, Office at Warehousing Sadan, 2nd Floor, Behind Gandhi Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director, and another. …. RESPONDENTS Counsel for petitioners: Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for respondents: Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy. The Court made the following order: ORDER: Heard Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel instructed by Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents and with the consent of both the counsel, this writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The 1st respondent-A.P. State Warehousing Corporation invited tenders on 17.09.2010 for construction of godowns at Karimnagar. The petitioner became the successful bidder. The High Level Committee accepted the tender of the petitioner on 22.01.2011 vide proceedings No.SWC/conf/1919/PEG-2008/PPP/10-11 (GDWD) subject to certain conditions. The petitioner states that he has complied with all the stipulated conditions except condition No.3(b), which is as follows. 3) (a) The site of the proposed godown stated in the Tender Schedules cannot be changed. (b) The title deed of land or registered Lease Agreement wherever applicable along with all approvals required for construction of godowns shall be submitted within 90 (ninety) days from the date of acceptance letter. Else, the Bank Guarantee will be invoked. As per the said condition, the petitioner is obligated not to change the site proposed in the tender schedules. He is further obligated to submit title deed of the land or registered Lease Agreement wherever applicable along with all approvals required for construction of godown, within a period of 90 days of acceptance. The condition also stipulates that in default of doing so, the bank guarantee would be invoked. It is the case of the petitioner that he could not comply with condition No.3(b) for certain unavoidable reasons. It is stated that he could not make arrangements for the documents as there was standing crop on the proposed land and that it could not be possible for him to get necessary permission on account of pen-down strike of the employees of the State Government and other agitations prevailing in the area. The petitioner therefore, approached the 2nd respondent with a representation seeking extension of time to comply with condition No.3(b). It is stated that the 2nd respondent was not inclined even to receive the said representation. In the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition to declare the action of the respondents in refusing to receive the said representation, and at the same time initiating steps for forfeiture of the amounts deposited by him. I am not inclined to go into whether the petitioner deserves enlargement of time to comply condition No.3(b). Suffice it to note that when the petitioner wanted to submit his representation, the 2nd respondent, being the public authority, cannot refuse to receive the same. It is for the 2nd respondent to accede or decline the request made but for whatever reason he cannot refuse to receive the representation. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent to receive the representation dated 19.04.2011, consider the same and pass appropriate orders. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that the 2nd respondent be restrained from invoking the bank guarantee until the disposal of the representation. In the light of the above facts it is for the 2nd respondent to consider the said request also having due regard to the fact that the petitioner has complied with all other conditions including the deposit of considerable amounts. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions. 1. The petitioner is permitted to submit a copy of the representation dated 19.04.2011 to the 2nd respondent positively on 23.04.2011. 2. On receiving the said representation, the 2nd respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders within one week thereafter. 3. It is also open to the 2nd respondent to consider the request of the petitioner not to invoke the bank guarantee until further orders are passed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 21st April, 2011 Js. Note: operative portion by wire.