Disposed

The Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC3 Feb 2009WP/22702/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dealt with writ petitions challenging forfeiture of Earnest Money Deposits (E.M.D.) by the Mandal Parishad. The Court held that since the contracts were not awarded due to interim orders and no benefit was derived by the petitioners, the E.M.D. should not be forfeited. Instead, a fresh auction notice was ordered while allowing the petitioners to participate without paying further E.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; fresh auction notice to be issued; petitioners permitted to participate without further E.M.D.; earlier E.M.D. to be refunded if rights not granted.

The Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, Vs… — Company and Corporate | Telangana HC (2009)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.22702 of 2007 & 711 of 2009

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

The Mandal Parishad, K. Gokavaram initiated steps for grant of ferry rights at Kotipally. A notification was issued on 14-06-2007. The upset price was fixed at Rs.16,12,000/-. The petitioner in W.P.No.22702 of 2007 submitted its tender for Rs.14,99,999/-, and emerged as the highest bidder. However, necessary agreement could not be executed on account of the interim order passed in W.P.No.13677 of 2007. It approached this Court with a prayer to declare that it is entitled to collect the toll at Kotipally Ferry, for the year 2007-08, and for issuance of consequential directions.

¶4

While admitting the writ petition on 26-10-2007, this Court passed an interim order, directing the respondents to take further steps in pursuance of the auction held on 30-06-2007. The period covered by the notification dated 14-06-2007 had expired on 30-06-2008. Therefore, fresh auction notice was issued on 21-06-2008. The petitioner in W.P.No.711 of 2009 emerged as the highest bidder, for Rs.14,99,999/-. It has deposited Rs.2,25,000/-, as E.M.D. On the ground that the balance of the amount was not deposited within time, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, the 4^th respondent, issued proceedings dated 30-07-2008, forfeiting the E.M.D. The same is challenged in W.P.No.711 of 2009.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and learned Standing Counsel for the Mandal Parishad.

¶6

For one reason or the other, the efforts made by the Mandal Parishad to put the ferry rights to auction did not fructify. The petitioner

¶7

in W.P.No.22702 of 2007, which emerged as the highest bidder for the period 2007-08 was not awarded contract, in view of the interim orders obtained in W.P.No.13627 of 2007. Though the petitioner in W.P.No.711 of 2009 became the highest bidder, it did not deposit the balance of the amount, in view of the interim orders that were passed in W.P.M.P.No.25920 of 2007. It is not as if that, either of the petitioners have derived any benefit for themselves. On the other hand, the Mandal itself was operating the ferries. Therefore, the E.M.D. deposited by them cannot be forfeited.

¶8

This Court is of the view that, instead of refunding the amount, fresh auction notice may be issued, proposing to grant ferry rights from 31-03-2009, till further period of six months or one year, and both the petitioners may be permitted to participate in it, without insisting on payment of any further E.M.D. Depending on the outcome of the result of the tender process, they may be granted the ferry rights, or the E.M.D., deposited by them earlier, shall be refunded.

¶9

The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________________ Dt.03-02-2008. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

¶11

The Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Marine Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited, v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S. Prasad Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Smt. M.Geetha Vs The joint Collector-I, Ranga Reddy District.

The Agnikula Kshatriya Sand Quarry Boatsman Vs The District Collector

Mrs.Kiran Naidu Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

Ahmedi Begum Vs The Tahsildar

V. Sridhar S/o Subba Rao Vs Goverment of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal