THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.NO.5206 OF 2008 ORDER It appears, by way of tender notification dated 10-6-2004, first respondent organization invited tenders for the sale of un-serviceable generator transformer limb 240 MVA 15.75/220 KV at RTPP, Kadapa District. The petitioner appears to have submitted his tender and the same was accepted for Rs.11,00,000/- . According to the petitioner, he had also paid an amount of Rs.22,000/- towards EMD and further security deposit of Rs.33,000/- on 12.10.2004. Having received an amount of Rs.55,000/-, the petitioner was not allowed to lift the material and the respondents have been dodging the matter even after persistent persuasion. On 18th February, 2008 impugned letter was issued stating that the sale ordered in favour of the petitioner firm vide reference dated12-10-2004 for sale of “un-serviceable generator transformer limb 240 MVA 15.75/220” available at RTPP, Kadapa District, is cancelled duly releasing the security amount of Rs.55,000/- and the petitioner was requested to approach the Pay Officer, AP GENCO for refund of the security deposit amount of Rs.55,000/-. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the counter filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, at paragraph Nos.3 and 4, it is stated as under: “It is humbly submitted that with reference to the averments mentioned in para 3 of the affidavit in so far as the initial issuance of sale order to the writ petitioner is concerned, it is true that it was issued. However, the sale order was for “unserviceable cable generator transformer link 240 MVA 15.75 KV/220KV” at RTPP Kadapa district for a sum of Rs.11,00,000.09 and subsequently A.P.Genco found to be not the owner of the said material and in fact the said limb is the property of BHEL. The sale order dt.12.10.2004 was cancelled on 18.2.2008. It is humbly submit that due to mistake action was initiated by APGENCO vide tender notice No.5 dt.10-06-2004 for sale, generally an internal survey report would be made available regarding such type of unserviceable materials. Since this item of “Limb” was also included in the survey report dated.22-12-2001 of Chief Engineer for damaged “R PHASE” H.V/I.V. limit of 240 KVA generator transformer was failed due to tripping of Unit II in RTPP on 13-08-1995 and when a resurvey report was called for it was came to light in the month of November 2007 that the owner of transformer limb is BHEL and by mistake APGENCO called for tenders for sale. Therefore, having found no ownership to the said transformer limb the sale order was cancelled. Hence the allegation of the writ petitioner that he was not allowed to lift the material in spite of his willingness to pay the amount is unwarranted and unacceptable since APGENCO is not the owner of the material. It is submitted that with reference to the allegations mentioned in paras 4 to 6 of the affidavit that his representation dt.6.1.2005 raising the objections by the 2nd respondent herein and for obtaining survey report for lifting the material was no seriously attended to is incorrect. It is humbly submit that on 6.1.2005 and 2.7.2005 the writ petitioner has informed the corporate office of APGENCO stating that the Chief Engineer, O & M, RTPP, Kadapa is not inclining to receive the sale order amount on the pretext of non-availability or finalization of survey report. Basing on these representations the Chief Engineer, O & M, RTPP, Kadapa was directed to submit a report in reply to the representation of the petitioner vide corporate office letter No.741/2005, dated 13-07-2005 and letter No.1975 dated 24-08-2005. It is, in pursuance of the reply received from the Chief Engineer, O & M, RTPP, Kadapa vide letter No.3036 dt.3-9-2005 in his D.No.501, dt.24.4.2006 brought to light that the survey report was already sent to the corporate office and awaiting of approval. This fact was informed to the writ petitioner promptly on 24-4-2006 as stated above. Therefore, the allegation in this regard to say that the writ petitioner were kept in dark is totally misconceived.” However, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the impugned order no reasons were furnished and the reasons are sought to be substituted by way of counter which is not permissible under the law. May be what the learned counsel for the petitioner states is true, but this case stands on a different footing. The material which was found to have been included in the survey report dated 22.12.2001 belongs to the BHEL and it was included in the survey report for the purpose of disposal on auction in the month of November. After the sale was conducted, it was found that particular piece of material, which is sought to be sold under the auction, belongs to BHEL. Therefore, further action in pursuance of the tender notification dated 10.6.2004 was dropped. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that the material being sold to some third parties does not belong to BHEL and no such evidence is placed before the Court. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents asserted that the BHEL has already identified the subject unserviceable scrap and taken away. Therefore, it cannot be said that cancellation in view of the mistake committed by the respondents was in any way illegal. But, it appears immediately after payment of Rs.55,000/- on the representation made by the petitioner, the respondents should have returned Rs.55,000/- received as EMD and security deposit. Instead of doing that, they have addressed a letter only on 18.2.2008. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that while upholding the order passed by the respondents, the respondents are directed to refund an amount of Rs.55,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization. The amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. _______________ C.V.RAMULU,J rkk Dated: 23-11-2010