Abdul Wajeed vs APSRTC, Regional Manager, Karimnagar and another

The first respondent issued tender notification calling for tenders in sealed covers for granting licence to run soda and Cool drinking shop located at Koratla bus stand for a period of three years. In response to the notification, the petitioner submitted his sealed tender. The petitioner was the only tenderer. The tender was opened on 8-7-1998, and the petitioner offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs.2808/- per month. The rate offered by the petitioner was not acceptable to the tender committee. Hence, the petitioner was called for negotiation. Negotiation took place on 12-8-1998, and at the negotiation, the petitioner offered to pay rent at the rate of Rs.4,509/- per month. Even then, licence was not granted to the petitioner. Hence this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot the shop in favour of the petitioner.

The respondents have filed counter. In the Counter, it is stated that as per the guidelines framed by the Corporation, the licence fee should be atleast 10% more than the earlier fee. The notified shop earlier consisted of two shops, one for selling cool drinks, and therefore the offer made by the petitioner at the negotiation at the rate of Rs.4,509/- per month is not acceptable.

The only question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has made out any ground to issue writ of Mandamus. It is not a case where the petitioner''s offer is rejected and the licence is granted to some one else who offered bid at a lower rate or that the Corporation privately negotiated with a third party and granted licence. If the management of the Corporation does rat want to grant licence unless it receives the offer at the minimum rate stipulated under the relevant guidelines, the Court cannot compel the management of the APSRTC to grant licence in favour of the petitioner in breach of the guidelines. No case is made out for interference. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

However, it is made clear that if the management of the APSRTC proceeds to dispose of the stall by issuing fresh tender notification, it is trite to state that the petitioner is at liberty to participate in such tender proceedings and offer his bid. No costs.