WP/9475/2010 of N. Chandrasekhar, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

It is the petitioner’s case that he had depositedRs.31,20,000/- as per the requirement under a Memodated 27.2.2009. It appears that the said memo wasquestioned in WP No. 6314 of 2009 and the said writpetition was ultimately allowed by a Division Bench of thisCourt on 9.2.2010. The petitioner, therefore, has beenrepresenting to the respondents to refund the amountdeposited in pursuance of the memo aforesaid.Complaining inaction of the respondents in spite ofnumber of representations including the lastrepresentation dated 1.4.2010, this writ petition is filed.

With the consent of the learned for the parties, thiswrit petition is being disposed of with the following order, The petitioner’s claim for refund is based upon theaforesaid memo which was ultimately set aside by thisCourt in the judgment referred to above. The said writpetition having been allowed, any action taken inpursuance of the said memo including the deposit madeby the petitioner, therefore, has to be restituted. On thatprinciple, the petitioner’s application for refund of theamount ought to have been considered by therespondents by passing appropriate orders. Since therepresentations made by the petitioner are pending withthe respondents without any consideration, I deem itappropriate to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to considerthe petitioner’s representations and request for refund ofthe amount aforesaid in accordance with law within sixweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

_________________________

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

Dt. 31.12.2010KR