THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.29284 of 2014
Between: Smt.Bandi Jyothi And
Dated 07th October, 2014
…Petitioner Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC) Jagityal, Karimnagar District and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Kondapalli Counsel for the respondents: Smt.Danda Radhika The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the inaction of respondent No.2 in returning the EMD amount in pursuance of the petitioner’s representation, dated 30.11.2013, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner was granted licence for running a cycle/scooter stand No.1 at APSRTC Bus Stand, Jagityal, Karimnagar for the period between 05.02.2013 and 04.02.2017. As the petitioner failed to pay the licence fee as stipulated in the licence, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner’s licence was terminated by proceedings No.E5/122(94)/12-RM:KR, dated 03.07.2013, duly forfeiting the security deposit after adjusting the amounts payable by the petitioner towards the licence fee, electricity charges, water charges etc. The petitioner has not questioned the said termination proceedings. She has however made a representation on 30.11.2013 to respondent No.2 for refund of the EMD. Feeling aggrieved by the non-disposal of the said representation, the petitioner filed this writ petition.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The order by which the petitioner’s licence was terminated reads as under:
“The Security Deposit after adjusting the amounts due to be paid by you to the Corporation towards Licence fee, Electricity charges, Water charges etc. is hereby forfeited to the revenues of Corporation.”
Admittedly, the petitioner has not questioned the termination order either as a whole or at least to the extent of forfeiture of the security deposit. Having allowed the said order to become final, the petitioner cannot be permitted to claim refund of the security deposit. In this view of the matter, no mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner’s representation for refund of EMD can be issued.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 07th October, 2014
VGB