IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25074 of 2002 Between: Mohd.Mujeeb S/o.Mohd.Ismail C/o.Fruit Stall, New Bus Stand, Jagityal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P.S.R.T.C. Rep.by its Regional Manager Karimnagar. 2 The Regional Deputy Controller, Legal Metrology, Government of Andhra Pradesh at Eluru 3 The Controller, Legal Metrology, Governemnt of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner :MR.D.BHASKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to set aside notification dated 04-12-2002 issued by the respondent to the extent it relates to the shop at No.7 at Jagtial Bus Station, and proceedings dated 08-11-2002, whereby the respondent cancelled the petitioner’s offer and ordered for forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposit amount, as illegal. At the hearing, none appeared for the parties. A perusal of the averments contained in the affidavit, filed in support of the Writ Petition, shows that in response to the tender notification issued on 12-10-2001, the petitioner offered the highest bid amount for shop No.7 at Jagtial Bus Station under D.O.T. scheme and the same was accepted by the respondent. The petitioner paid the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs.9960/-, but, however, he did not deposit the balance amount as required under the terms of tender. The petitioner claimed that he made representations dated 01-10-2002 and 15-11-2002 to the respondent wherein he mentioned that because of jaundice, from which he was suffering, he could not pay the amounts and he requested time for payment of the balance amount. But, the respondent, however, issued proceedings dated 08-11-2002 whereby he cancelled the tender duly forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit amount of Rs.9960/-. The respondent later issued fresh tender notice dated 04-12-2002. A perusal of the record shows that despite the fact that the petitioner’s tender was accepted in respect of shop No.7, he failed to deposit the amount inspite of specific requests made by the respondent. It is not the case of the petitioner that under the tender terms and conditions, the respondent has not reserved its right to cancel the tender and forfeit the Earnest Money Deposit in the event of the successful tenderer not paying the balance amount and entering into agreement. The respondent has, evidently, exercised the power vested in him under the tender conditions in cancelling the tender and forfeiting the Earnest Money Deposit amount. There is no evidence to show that the petitioner submitted two representations, said to have been made by him to the respondent. At the hearing, no one is present to substantiate the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. As the respondent, presumably, exercised his powers under the tender conditions, I do not see any reason to invalidate the action taken by the respondent. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27-02-2008 LUR