Disposed

P.Narayana Murthy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C

Telangana HC7 Dec 2010WP/25636/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition regarding termination of bus cleaning/dusting contracts. Directing that security deposits be refunded if applied for, the court ordered the respondents to pass appropriate orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to make detailed representation for refund of E.M.D. and security deposits; respondents to pass appropriate orders within 8 weeks.

P.Narayana Murthy Vs The A.P.S.R.T.C — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶3

W.P.No.25636 of 2008

¶4

Date: 7^th December, 2010

¶5

Between:

¶6

P.Narayana Murthy

¶7

.. Petitioner

¶8

And

¶9

The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others.

¶10

.. Respondents

¶11

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶12

W.P.No.25636 of 2008

¶13

ORAL ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in terminating the contract work allotted to the petitioner i.e. Sweeping, Cleaning, Washing and Parking of Buses at Narsipatnam Depot even before expiry of contract period of 2 years from 1.3.2007 to 28.2.2009 vide proceedings dated 3.11.2008 by duly forfeiting deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- as arbitrary and

¶15

illegal.

¶16

This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 24.11.2008, directed the respondents to continue the contract work of the petitioner until alternative arrangements are made by calling tenders.

¶17

It appears, in pursuance of the above orders, petitioner was continued and had completed the term of contract. Therefore, nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. However, the learned counsel for petitioner states that in view of the fact that the petitioner has completed the contract, the E.M.D. and other security deposits, lying with respondents may be refunded to the petitioner.

¶18

In view of the same, the petitioner is directed to make a detailed representation to the respondents seeking refund of such amounts, if any, and on receiving such application, the respondents shall consider and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of (8) eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶20

______________ C.V.RAMULU, J

¶21

Date: 7.12.2010 DA

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU

¶23

W.P.No.25636 of 2008

¶24

7.12.2010

P.Narayana Murthy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Narayana Murthy v. The A.P.S.R.T.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.S Ranganadham Vs Mr. Capt. D.r. Sharma

N.Sekhar Reddy Vs The Govt.of A.P

Dr. M. Sreedhar, Vs Medical Counsel of India

B.Venkata Subba Reddy Kadapa District Vs The Govt of A.P

Guntupalli Gram Panchayat, rep. by its Sarpanch Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary

M/s.Sri Ramanjaya Saw Mills, represented by its Vs The Forest Range Officer