IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13248 of 2005 Between: Smt. Shobadevi … Petitioner AND The Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Govt., of A.P., Shakar Bhavan, Hyderabad & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao Counsel for respondent No.1: GP for Industries Counsel for respondent No.2: Sri J. Srinivas Rao This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13248 of 2005 ORDER:- At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.1 in refunding a sum of Rs.86,913/- being 50% of the interest collected on belated payment of purchase tax from M/s. Krishna Khandasar Sugar Mill, Bicknoor, Nizamabad District, as illegal and contrary to G.O.Ms.No.28, dated 28.01.2004. Heard Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner and Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, A.P., it is averred as under: “It is also true that an amount of Rs.1,73,826/- has been sanctioned by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.28 of Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department, dated 28.01.2004 for refunding the interest amount collected on purchase tax in the name of M/s. Krishna Khandasari Sugar Mill, Bicknoor, Nizamabad District, in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in C.A.No.903/84 dated 28.04.1999. The total amount of Rs.1,73,826/- was sanctioned in the name of the said Khandasari Sugar Mill but not in the name of the individuals or partners of the Khandasari Sugar Mill. This amount is kept ready in the name of the respondent No.2 who is the licensee of the Khandasari Sugar Mill with the department for disbursement.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner and respondent No.2 settled the dispute regarding their entitlement to receive compensation. He requested that respondent No.1 may be directed to pay the compensation to the petitioner and respondent No.2 in the agreed ratio, in the event a joint request is made to that effect. Having considered the said submission, I direct respondent No.1 to disburse the amount already in deposit in accordance with the joint memo, if filed by the petitioner and respondent No.2. If no such memo is filed, the petitioner shall be free to work out his remedies against respondent No.2 before appropriate forum. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.16823 of 2005 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.06.2008 ES