The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.32129 of 2014 Dated 28.10.2014 Between:
V.Mastan And …Petitioner The Andhra Pradesh Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Y.V.Anil Kumar for Mr.T.C.D.Sekhar Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed with the grievance that the respondents have not been refunding the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.1,24,82,750/- and Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.7 lakhs paid by him towards bank commission charges and advance payment respectively.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he has become successful bidder in an auction held for sale of 7,000 Metric Tons of Eucalyptus Pulpwood (without bark) and that an agreement was entered into on 06-12-2013 whereunder the respondents agreed to sell the pulpwood on or before 30.06.2014; and that as per the terms of the agreement, the petitioner has furnished bank guarantee for Rs.1,24,82,750/- besides making the advance payment of Rs.7 lakhs. The petitioner alleged that no part of the agreed quantity of pulpwood was delivered to him, and that therefore, the respondents have failed to fulfill their commitment under the said agreement. He has, therefore, sought for a direction to the respondents to return the bank guarantee furnished by him along with the commission charges of Rs.5 lakhs and the advance payment of Rs.7 lakhs.
It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that after the purported expiry of the agreement period, no representation has been made by him seeking refund of the bank guarantee along with the commission charges and the advance amount. The petitioner ought not to have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court unless he has first approached the respondents with a demand to refund the amount as held by the Supreme Court (see Kamini Kumar Das Choudhury vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. and Amrit Lal vs. Collector of Central Excise.) . In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition at this stage.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to first approach the respondents with a demand to refund the bank guarantee along with the bank commission charges and the advance payment and avail a fresh remedy, in the event, the respondents do not satisfy his demand.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.40170 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 28th October, 2014
LUR