IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 8853 of 2004 Between: M/s Parnika Constructions pvt.Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director Smt. C.Lakshmi Reddy, 105, Surya Towers. S.P. Road, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Engineer-in-Chief (R&B) Administration and FAP., Presently M.D.A.P. Road Development Corporation, Hyderabad. 2 The Superintending Engineer (R&B) Circle Kurnool, Kurnool District. 3 The Executive Engineer (R&B) Nandyal, Kurnool District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an order or a direction or a writ more particulalry a writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the letter No.RC.WP/13182/Supt./E.E./R&B/NDL/2003-04 dated 24-4-2004 issued by the 3rd respondent as null, void, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to pass an order after considering our reply dated 15-3-2004 and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.PRATAP REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI W.P.NO.8853 of 2004 ORAL ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the 3rd respondent’s letter dated.24-04-2004 encashing the bank guarantee amount of Rs.2,12,454/-furnished by the petitioner in connection with the execution of work of Heavy Periodic maintenance and making of deficiencies from KM 0/0 to 15/0 of Koilakuntla – Jammalamadugu road in Kurnool District, as arbitrary and illegal. Though this Court initially granted interim stay of encashment of the bank guarantee, on a vacate petition filed by the respondents the interim stay was vacated on 11-04-2008. In view of the said order nothing survives for adjudication on merits. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for determination of its alleged liabilities relating to the work in question. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI,J 11th December,2008 *TSNR