t [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATl (Special Original Jurisdiction) J WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL I TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE \ PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10302 OF 2025 Between: Manda Srinivasulu Reddy, S/o Narayana Reddy Aged 40 years, R/o D.No.1-0, Main Road, Vaddipalem (P.O), Bheemavaram, Marripadu (Mandal), Nellore District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented through Principal Secretary, Department of Roads and Transport, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Managing Director,, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC House, First Floor, NTR Administration Block, Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, NTR District. 3. The District Public Transport Officer,, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vijayawada, NTR District. 4. The Personnel Officer,, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vijayawada, NTR District. / ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in cancelling the allotment of Stall Number DB-01 Open Space along with structure measuring 31,700 sft in Departure Block, PNBS, Vijayawada for running the business of Hotel and Dormitory vide Orders No.P7/437(01 )/2025-DPTO/NTR dated 15/04/2025 without considering the representation dated 09/04/2025 as illegal, arbitrary. , unjust, malafide and against the principles of Natural Justice besides violation of Article 14, 21 and 300-A of Constitution of India and to consequently set aside the impugned orders dated 15/04/2025 . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to allot the subject Stall Number DB- 01 Open Space along with structure measuring 31,700 sft in Departure Block, PNBS, Vijayawada by suspending the impugned order No.P7/437(01)/2025-DPTO/NTR dated 15/04/2025 passed by 4th respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following order: APHC010205202025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) if [3331] lT-. WEDNESDAY .THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 10302/2025 Between: Manda Srinivasulu Reddy ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K JYOTHI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by respondent No.4 vide No.P7/437(01)/2025-DPTO/NTR, dated 15.04.2025 (Ex.P1), cancelling the allotment order of the petitioner, the above writ petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Sanisetti Venkateswariu, learned Standing Counsel, appeared for respondents 2 to 4. SRS.J W.P.No 10302 of 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a tender notification vide No.P7/797(01)/2025-DPTO/NTR, dated 13.03.2025 (Ex.P6), was issued by respondent No.3, for different items. The petitioner participated in the tender process in respect of the 4’^ item i.e. Hotel & Dormitory, for the land admeasuring 31.700 (approx) square feet. The petitioner quoted Rs.54,67,899.99/- and emerged as the highest bidder and thereby, allotment order vide No P7/437(01)/2025-DPTO/NTR, dated 28.03.2025 (Ex.P4), was issued. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 09.04.2025 (Ex.P2) to measure the land. Without considering the petitioner’s representation, since the petitioner failed to pay the amount as per the tender conditions, the proceedings impugned were issued. 3. an 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner deposited Rs.10,00,000/- as E.M.D. and participated in the tender. The extent of land mentioned in the tender notification is not available on the ground and hence, the petitioner made a representation. When the matter was listed on 22.04.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will deposit the remaining amount on or before 28.04.2025. Recording the said statement, the matter was adjourned today. 5. 6. Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not deposit the amount. 7. Sri Sanisetti Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel, would submit that the petitioner participated in the tender process and, after emerging the highest bidder, the petitioner failed to deposit the amount. Since the petitioner failed to deposit the amount, as per the terms and conditions of the ' . tender notification, the proceedings impugned were issued. He would also as SRS,J W.P No. 10302 of 2025 submit that the petitioner, after verification of terms and conditions, including the extent, participated in the tender process. Thus, as seen from the material available on record, there is no dispute regarding the petitioner’s emerging as the successful bidder and issuance of allotment order vide Ex.P4 and the petitioner’s willingness to deposit the balance amount of Rs.4,69,53,486/-, within seven days. 8. 9. The proceedings impugned would disclose that since the petitioner failed to remit the balance security deposit and one-month advance license fee, a notice dated 07.04.2025 was issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner failed to remit the security deposit in time. The petitioner participated in the tender after verifying all the details. Having participated in the process with his eyes wide open and after emerging as the successful bidder, the petitioner, instead of complying with the conditions, cannot be allowed to take a somersault vis-a-vis the tender. The authority, in fact, issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount as per the tender conditions before cancelling the allotment order. Since the petitioner failed to remit the amount, the authority cancelled the allotment order and forfeited the E.M.D. amount. The authority adhered to the tender cohclifi’bns., Hpnce, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition dnd is liable to be dismissed. t» '■>*, l «■ ^ -s Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. 11. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER / //TRUE COPY// To, 1. One CC to SRI. K JYOTHI PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCS to GP FOR ROADS BUILDINGS .High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 3. Three CD Copies psk m HIGH COURT DATED:30/04/2025 ORDER WP.No.10302 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITH NO COSTS