Telangana High Court
WP/25814/2005 of Mohd. Sheik Ahmed, Vs The Regional Manager, APSRTC on 28 December 2005
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25814 of 2005 Dated 28-12-2005 Between: Mohd. Sheik Ahmed, S/o. Sheik Madar, R/o. H.No. 17-8-412/ A /E/1, Bagh-e-jahar-ara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad. 2 The Asst.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25814 of 2005
Dated 28-12-2005
Between:
Mohd. Sheik Ahmed, S/o. Sheik Madar,
R/o. H.No. 17-8-412/A/E/1, Bagh-e-jahar-ara, Yakutpura, Hyderabad.
..... PETITIONER
AND
1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad.
2 The Asst. Traffic Manager, APSRTC R.R. Region, MGBS, Hyderabad.
.....RESPONDENT(S)
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 25814 of 2005
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner states that he has been awarded the contract of maintenance ofelectrical equipment in the Bus Stand, for the period from 01-07-2001 to May, 2003.According to him, the contract was extended beyond that period, orally, and that herendered his services. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents havenot paid a sum of Rs.2,94,300/-, for the works done by him, and that they have notrefunded the security deposit.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for therespondents.
So far as the refund of security deposit, on expiry of the period of contract isconcerned, the petitioner can certainly make appropriate representation, and therespondents shall be under obligation to consider the same, in accordance with theterms of contract. However, the plea of the petitioner that he rendered service,beyond the period of contract; cannot be accepted by this Court, in the absence ofany written orders from the respondents.
Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to make arepresentation to the respondents for refund of the security deposit made by him, atthe time of awarding the contract. There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.28-12-2005KO
_______________________
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.