THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 8242 OF 2009 Dated 2nd June, 2010 Between: P.Raghupathi …Petitioner And The Regional Manager and three others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Y.Ashok Raj Counsel for the respondents: Sri Sridhar Reddy Pottigari The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside proceedings dated 21.03.2009 issued by respondent No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In pursuance of notification dated 14.12.2007, issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner applied for supply of buses on hire basis on route Huzurabad-Karimnagar-Warangal by depositing a sum of Rs.30,000/- as Earnest Money Deposit. The petitioner was allotted the said route vide proceedings dated 27.12.2007 of respondent No.2. In the said proceedings, the petitioner was directed to produce the buses of the required type for inspection before respondent No.1 within 60 days from the date of the said letter. It is indicated therein that if the petitioner fails to produce the buses within the stipulated time, the allotment will be treated as cancelled. The petitioner failed to produce the buses within the said time. However, respondent No.1 extended further time of 60 days vide his letter dated 12.02.2008 for production of the buses. The petitioner failed to produce the buses even during the extended time. He made representation on 25.08.2008 to respondent No.1 stating that as financial assistance could not be obtained by him earlier, he could not produce the buses and now that the loan was sanctioned, he is prepared to produce the buses. However, respondent No.4 rejected the said representation through the impugned letter, wherein it is mentioned that due to non-supply of buses within the specified time, the Regional Manager, Karimnagar has cancelled the allotment letters and forfeited the caution deposit and that as induction of hire buses in pursuance of the notification issued in December, 2007 was already concluded, the petitioner’s request for further extension of time cannot be accepted. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was unable to secure the financial help, he could not produce the buses within the stipulated time and that the refusal of the petitioner’s request for further extension of time is arbitrary. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the same, because the acceptance of the petitioner’s offer for supply of buses on hire basis is subject to the condition of his producing the buses within a stipulated time. On the petitioner’s own showing, the time granted to him was extended by 60 days more and even during this extended time, he failed to produce the buses. The respondents have been running a public utility service and the need for providing transport facilities to the travelling public need not be overemphasized. Failure of the lessees to supply the buses in time will have a debilitating effect on the functioning of the Corporation. Therefore, in matters of this nature, it is not possible for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to direct the Corporation contrary to the terms of the tender to accept the buses supplied by the tenderers belatedly. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of the respondents in not extending further time in favour of the petitioner for supplying the buses. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10772 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 2nd June, 2010 vrn