IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TWENTYTHIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19860 OF 2024 Between: Yetti Sunitha, W/o Ramanjaneyulu, Aged about 27 years, R/o D.No.3/38 Ippatia village, Lingala Mandal, YSR Kadapa District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by its Executive Director (Operations) Operations (PLG) Department, RTC House, Vijayawada. 2. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep., by the Accounts Officer, Kadapa Region, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in not issuing allotment letter to the petitioner for the lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24 of Pulivendula Depot, YSR Kadapa District as per the proceedings dated 26.3.2024 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent Corporation to issue allotment letter in favour of the petitioner. \ lA NO: 1 OF 2024 XT' ^ Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the tmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the ^ Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Corporation to issue ;%ll^n^nt letter in favour of the p»oner for the lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24 of Pulivendula Depot, YSR Kadapa District as per the proceedings dated 26.3.2024, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner.SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No’s. 1 & 2: SRI K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) ■'‘T '-A. a "■j < ym <- The Court made the following ORDER; 1 \ 1 APHC010387972024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 19860/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER Yetti Sunitha AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) % 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO:19860/2024 This Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of 1. India seeking the following relief; “..to issue an appropriatewrit, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent Corporation in not issuing allotment letter to the petitioner for the lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24 of Pulivendula Depot, YSR Kadapa District as per the proceedings dated 26.03.2024 as arbitrary, illegal, null and void, against the Norms of Public Policy and Principles of Natural Justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and to issue consequential direction directing the respondent Corporation to issue allotment letter in favour of the petitioner and to pass....” The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 issued 2. MSTC-Vll Tender vide No.P9/359(1)/2024-OPD(P) inviting tenders vide notification dated 17.02.2024 calling for applications for hiring of The Petitioner had buses in the 26 Districts totaling 541 lots, participated in the above tender and stood as L2. After opening of the tenders, Sri K.A. Kumar Reddy, who stood as LW, had filed representation before the authorities on 20.03.2024 and withdrawn his tender. Thereafter the Respondent authorities took a decision for considering the L2 in respect of other lots and negotiated and ::3:; accordingly proceedings were issued on 26.03.2024. But so far the Respondent Authorities have not issued any allotment letter in favour of the Petitioner along with others. The learned submits that, pursuant to the proceedings of executive director dated 26.03.2024 where it states that when the L1 bidders were withdrawn, the L2 bidders would be considered and they proceedings to that effect and also entered petitioner being L2 was neither considered counsel were issued agreements. But nor issued permit proceedings on par with others. By that the respondents have violated the Article-14 of the Constitution of India. Petition. Hence the Writ 3. Respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit and contended that after examination of the complaints received from the other bidders, the competent authority did not consider for issuance of allotment letters to the Petitioner herein-L2 bidder for 24 lots, stated at Para-5 of the counter-affidavit that the Petitioner was L2 It is further bidder in respect of four lots (Lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24 of YSR District only). As per the directions of 1®' Respondent dated 26.03.2024 the 2"'' Respondent negotiated with the L2 bidders including the Petitioner and submitted compliance report on 04.04.2024 to the 1®‘ Respondent but no instructions were issued by ;;4;: of allotment letters to the L2 bidders matters of letter dated the Respondent for issuance in respect of 24 lots which are subject 26.03.2024. that the Respondents received complaints particularly against the Petitioner on It is further stated against the L2 bidders, more 23.03.2024 and 4.04.2024 from third parties and also on 23.04.2024 4. Addebassula Yajamanulu”. from “Satya Sai Mariyu Ananatapuram In view of the said allegations, the Respondents not issued allotment letters in favour of the Petitioner. It is further stated that since the letter of allotment pursuant to the Petitioner was not issued any vested right in his favour, of the tender document the Corporation tender notice, he did not confer any However as per the terms right to reject any bid or reason at any stage cancel any lot without assigning Further, the Corporation has right even to reserves any cancel the LI bidder I U2 bidder if the rate is not viable or accepted Accordingly, the tender process / selection in and 24 of YSR District were cancelled of allotment to the L2 bidders offered are by the Corporation respect of Lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and kept vacant without issuing letters who agreed the bid price subject to negotiations competitive and less than Indicative prices of the respective lots who are agreed they would be issued letters of allotment. ;;5:; Rao, learned counsel for Heard Sri Gudapati Venkateswara learned Standing Counsel for Respondent 5. the Petitioner and Corporation and perused the material placed on record. learned counsel for the Petitioner the bid As contended by the price of the Petitioner is competitive and less than the indicative subject lots (Lot Nos. 17, 18, 22 and 24 of YSR 6. price in respect of the District). As such, the in respect of the 4 lots the claim of the Petitioner is in accordance with the terms of the Respondent dated 26.03.2024. It is further the claim of the Petitioner whoever classified as Petitioner shall be issued letter of allotments out of 24 lots is valid and sustainable since proceedings of the 1 observed that as per L2 bidders in respect of 24 lots of K.A. Kumar Reddy were given denied which is nothing but letter of allotments but the Petitioner was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, contended by learned Standing Counsel that in absence of letter of allotment issued in favour of the Petitioner or any do not have any vested right 7. As any agreement entered with the Petitioner to claim or to enforce the proceedings of the 1** Respondent dated legally valid and tenable. But the respondents being public authority cannot be permitted to violate the Articles 14 of the Learned Standing Counsel in his counter 26.03.2024 is Constitution of India. ::6:: affidavit categorically denied the contention of the Petitioner that other than the Petitioner who are classified as L2 bidders in respect of 24 Lots of K.A. Kumar Reddy were issued letters of allotment. As such, the Corporation has right to reject any bid or cancel any selected lots without assigning any reasons at any stage is subject to rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In view of the foregoing discussion, if the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 issued any letters of allotment in favour of L2 bidders pursuant to the proceedings dated 26.03.2024 in respect of 24 lots of K.A. Kumar Reddy, the Petitioner is also entitled for issuance of letters of allotments on par with them. However, if respondents not issued any letters of allotment in favour of any of the L2 bidders in respect of 24 lots of K.A. Kumar Reddy, the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 empowered to cancel the selection process pursuant to the proceedings dated 26.03.2024. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. 8. are 9. Sd/- P.U.V.BHASKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Executive Director (Operations) Operations (PLG) Department, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, RTC House, Vijayawada. \ 2. The Accounts Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kadapa Region, Kadapa, YSR Kadapa District. 3. One CC to SRI. VENKATESWARA RAO GUDAPATI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI. K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC) [OPUC] 5. Three CD Copies PRK I I HIGH COURT DATED:23/01/2025 f ORDER WP.No.19860 Of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS