THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18237 of 2006 ORDER: Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) constructed a building in Khammam Bus Station. With a view to construct 11 shops on the first floor of the existing building on Deposit, Operate and Transfer (D.O.T.) basis, it issued a tender notice, dated 27.05.2005. The petitioner emerged as the highest bidder. He deposited a sum of Rs.12,87,000/- on 16.07.2005. He suggested certain alterations, such as providing a second staircase on the north-eastern side and digging of bore-wells etc. He has also made efforts to secure water connection from Khammam Municipality, respondent No.1 herein. The Corporation issued a notice, dated 18.08.2006, requiring the petitioner to enter into an agreement by depositing the balance of amount. It was also mentioned that if the petitioner fails to do so, necessary steps for cancellation of the agreement would be taken. This writ petition is filed challenging the alleged refusal by respondent No.1 to provide water connection and assailing the notice, dated 18.08.2006. The petitioner contends that unless the water is provided, it would be difficult for him to put the premises to use. The notice is also challenged on several grounds. On behalf of respondent No.1, a detailed counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that though every condition was complied with on the part of the Corporation, the petitioner did not cooperate. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Nearly five years have elapsed ever since the petitioner emerged as the highest bidder for construction of 11 shops on the first floor of the existing building on D.O.T. basis. The petitioner may certainly be interested in existence of necessary facilities and amenities. All the same, it should not hinder the very commencement of the contract. If after the petitioner occupies the premises, any further amenities are needed, he can certainly pray for the same to the extent permissible under law. There cannot be any justification on the part of the petitioner in not entering into the contract. The Corporation did nothing more than requiring the petitioner to perform his part of contract. So far as the water supply is concerned, the petitioner cannot directly approach the Municipality. At the most, he can impress upon the Corporation to provide water or to help him in securing water connection from the Municipality. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of, upholding the impugned notice, but granting one month time from today to the petitioner to enter into agreement by depositing the balance of the tender amount. It shall be open to him to make a representation to the Corporation for providing such amenities as are permissible under law and within the ambit of contract. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 02.06.2010. kdl