THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.21994 OF 2011 29th August, 2011. BETWEEN: MANUKONDA RATHAIAH .. PETITIONER AND BANK OF MAHARASHTRA GUNTUR BRANCH 4/1, BRODIPET, GUNTUR, REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.21994 OF 2011 O R D E R : On 8-8-2011 notice before admission was ordered and the learned counsel for the petitioner has been permitted to take out notice to the respondents by registered post with acknowledgement due and file proof of service. The respondents have since been served with the notice, but none entered appearance in the matter. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent, a contractor by profession, has been awarded work by the 2nd respondent- Superintendent Engineer, Panchayat Raj, Guntur. The 4th respondent was, therefore, required to furnish a bank guarantee in a sum of Rs.8,68,000/- in favour of the said 2nd respondent. In those set of circumstances, the petitioner offered his fixed deposits lying with the 1st respondent-Bank in a sum of Rs.7,28,000/- to be utilised for the purpose of furnishing the bank guarantee by the 4th respondent in favour of 2nd respondent. It is, further, stated that the bank guarantee, even after its renewal expired by 30-12-2010 and that there was no request made by the 2nd respondent either for its renewal or for its invocation. However, the 2nd respondent has not yet returned the original bank guarantee furnished by the 1st respondent-Bank. On the precious plea that the original bank guarantee has not since returned, the maturity proceeds of the fixed deposits of the petitioner are not allowed to be encashed by him. Hence, this writ petition. When once the 1st respondent-Bank is aware that the bank guarantee provided by it in favour of the 2nd respondent, even after its renewal has expired by 30-12-2010 and in the absence of any claim by the 2nd respondent either invoking the same or requesting for extension of the validity period, the 1st respondent-Bank is not supposed to prevent the petitioner herein from realising the maturity proceeds of his fixed deposits. The 2nd respondent has also not raised any objection in respect of the bank guarantee furnished by the 1st respondent so far. Hence, I see no justification for the 1st respondent- Bank in preventing or stopping the writ petitioner from realising the maturity proceeds of his fixed deposits. In view of the same, the petitioner is declared as entitled for receiving the maturity proceeds of his fixed deposits from the 1st respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of fifteen days from today. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Dt: 29-08-2011. ( NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO, J ) tnb THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHAN RAO WRIT PETITION NO.21994 OF 2011 29TH August, 2011. tnb