HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24786 of 2010 Date 05.10.2010 Between: Shaik Zaheeruddin. ..... PETITIONER AND A.P.State Wakf Board, Razzak Manzil, Opp. Public Gardens, Nampally, Hyderabad, rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and another. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the petitioner :Sri T.Sujan Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri Mir Masood Khan HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24786 of 2010 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2010 as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of his representation and to refrain from demanding the balance amount of Rs.99,99,999/- from him till such disposal. The petitioner has emerged as the higher bidder for right to run the shops in respondent No.2-Dargah. Having offered Rs.1,99,99,999/-, the petitioner has paid Rs.1,00,00,000/- as advance amount and was given time till 07.10.2010 for payment of the balance sum of Rs.99,99,999/- vide proceedings dated 08.06.2010 of respondent No.1. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that while the tender notice has mentioned as many as 109 shops to be handed over to him, he was handed over possession of only 55 shops. The petitioner has, therefore, filed a representation on 16.09.2010 bringing this fact to the notice of respondent No.1 with a request not to insist on payment of further amount in view of non-handing over of the remaining shops. As the said representation has not been disposed of and the last date for payment of the balance amount is fast approaching, the petitioner filed the Writ Petition. I have heard Sri T.Sujan Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Mir Masood Khan, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. From the facts noted above, it is evident that the petitioner has offered his bid on the basis of the tender notification which referred to as many as 109 shops. If possession of all the shops had not been given to the petitioner, he may be justified in making a request to respondent No.1 to consider his representation either for handing over of the remaining shops within reasonable time or to proportionately reduce the bid amount. Respondent No.1 is required to take a decision on this aspect. As the petitioner is stated to have made his representation as far back as 16.09.2010, expediency requires that respondent No.1 disposes of the same before insisting on the petitioner to pay the balance bid amount. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 16.09.2010 and communicate the same to him as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of the said representation, respondent No.1 shall not take any coercive steps for non-payment of the balance bid amount by the petitioner. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the main petition, WPMP.No.31716 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:05.10.2010 usd