The bench dismissed two writ petitions as infructuous due to the expiry of the tender term. The court however directed the respondents to refund any deposits made by the petitioner as the auction did not fructify.
The writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous; the respondents were directed to refund the deposits made by the petitioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P.Nos.17349 and 22135 of 2007
Date : 09-09-2010
W.P.No.17349 of 2007 :
Between : Killi Seshu Mohan Appalanaidu .. Petitioner
And
Zonal Joint Director, Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam and three others .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI
W.P.Nos.17349 and 22135 of 2007
COMMON ORDER :
The petitioner is common in both the Writ Petitions. In W.P.No.17349 of 2007, he challenged the action of the respondents in not confirming the sealed tenders relating to the sand quarry at the Vamsadhara River Bed, Purushottapuram Reach. This Court, although admitted the Writ Petition did not grant any interim orders. In W.P.No.22135 of 2007 he challenged the action of the respondents in issuing fresh tender notification vide Auction Notice No.2560/Q/07, dated 30-09-2007 without confirming/cancelling the earlier notification, which is subject matter of the Writ Petition No.17349 of 2007. In the said Writ Petition this Hon’ble Court by orders dated
17-10-2007 directed that any auction to be held was subject to further orders in the Writ Petition.
Sri A.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.17349 of 2007, on his own behalf and on behalf of
Sri Irugu Muni Raja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.22135 of 2007, represented that due to the lapse of time, the term of the tender expired and the cause in both the Writ Petitions does not survive
for adjudication and the Writ Petitions have become infructuous. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
The learned counsel, however, would submit that in pursuance of the auction notifications, certain amounts have been deposited by the petitioner and since the auction did not fructify, he is entitled for the refund of the said deposits. If that be so, the official respondents are directed to refund the said deposits to the Writ Petitioner.
________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 09th September, 2010. Note : Issue C.C. in one week. B/O SKMR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions became infructuous due to the lapse of time and expiry of the tender term?
Whether amounts deposited by the petitioner are refundable since the auction did not proceed?
Killi Seshu Mohan Appalanaidu
Zonal Joint Director, Mines and Geology, Visakhapatnam
Noushad Ali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
