IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTHDAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 17 of 2005 Between: Smt. M. Vijayalakshmi, W/o. Ravindranath Reddy, Manvi Homes, Soubhgyanagar Colony, Koritapadu, Guntur, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman/M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region, Guntur District. 3 G. Bhaskar Rao, High Tech Advertisers, Door No. 3-16-16, kVinayaka Temple Street, Nandula Peta, Tenali, Guntur District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to Issue a writ order or direction more one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not accepting the tender of the petitioner which is the lowest tender of the petitioenr which is the lowest tender to the Route permit of Tenali to Guntur Bia Narkoduru Route in Guntur District on the ground that the petitioner has not accepted for a further lower rate at Rs. 9.29ps per KM to ply the vehicle on the said route and on the other hand ﬁnalizing the tender of the 3rd respondent who has quoted at Rs. 9-89 ps per KM on the ground that the 3rd respondent has accepted to ply the vehicle on the said bus route at the rate of Rs. 9- 29ps per KM as illegal, arbitrary discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to ﬁnalize the tender of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 9-62 ps per KM for awarding Bus route permit from Tenali-Guntur Via Nara Koduru, Guntur District and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner:SMTA.GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.17 of 2005 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (RTC) invited applications from entrepreneurs for supply of express/district/ ordinary buses for plying on their routes. The route from Tenali to Guntur via Narakoduru (hereafter called, route I) and the route from Guntur to Tenali via Narakoduru (hereafter called, route II) were also routes in respect of which applications were invited. The petitioner submitted her tender to supply ordinary bus for plying on route I. She quoted Rs.9.62ps per km. Her case is that third respondent quoted Rs.9.89ps per km but without awarding contract to her, respondent Nos.1 and 2 negotiated with the tenderers and awarded contract to third respondent who quoted Rs.9.29ps per km during the negotiations in respect of route I. The petitioner, therefore, ﬁled instant writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not accepting her tender for route I as illegal and arbitrary. She also seeks a consequential direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to ﬁnalise her tender at Rs.9.62ps per km for route I. The Law Oﬃcer of RTC ﬁled a counter-aﬃdavit. It is stated that route II was proposed by Guntur II depot for operation with the same total distance of 316.8 kms per day as of route I. The lowest quotation was submitted at Rs.9.29ps per km for route II and the same was allotted to the person who quoted lowest quotation. When the negotiations committee met, the same was informed to petitioner who informed that it is not feasible to run the bus at Rs.9.29ps per km for route I. She requested to allot route I to her at Rs.9.62ps per km. As Rs.9.29ps was quoted for route II, route I was also allotted to the person who agreed to ply the bus at the same rate. A reference is made to condition 43 of the tender conditions under which the right is reserved to RTC to allot any route to any applicant. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that when the petitioner quoted lowest rate for route I her tender ought to have been accepted by RTC. Nextly she submits that RTC issued Circular dated 28.09.2002 indicating revised hire rates payable for all types of hire buses of 2003 model introduced in pursuance of the notiﬁcation of hire pf private buses and for ordinary bus an amount of Rs.10.20ps was ﬁxed. Therefore, there was no reason or rationale as to why the petitioner’s tender quotation at Rs.9.62ps should not be accepted. According to learned counsel in entire Andhra Pradesh the revised rates indicated by RTC in said Circular dated 28.09.2004 were followed and ignoring the same by respondent Nos.1 and 2 is arbitrary. Learned standing counsel for RTC placed before this Court original ﬁle and submits that when the distance of route I and route II is the same it would have been inappropriate and discriminatory to allow Rs.9.62ps for route I and Rs.9.29ps for route II, which was lowest quotation. Therefore, according to learned standing counsel negotiation committee oﬀered route I to the petitioner to run bus at Rs.9.29ps and only when she refused to do so, route I was allotted to third respondent, who agreed at Rs.9.29ps. There cannot be any doubt that Article 14 of the Constitution of India not only prohibits irrational classification of persons and things, but it also strikes at arbitrariness in any form. When the lowest tenderer quoted Rs.9.29ps for route II i.e., Guntur to Tenali via Narakoduru for distance of 316.8 kms, it would have been discriminatory and arbitrary to accept petitioner’s quotation with high rate of Rs.9.62ps for route I, which is of equal distance. For this reason negotiation committee discussed with the petitioner, third respondent and one K. Ramachandra Rao. Admittedly the negotiation committee oﬀered route I to the petitioner provided she agrees to run the bus at Rs.9.29ps. When she refused then only route I was oﬀered to third respondent. This Court, therefore, does not ﬁnd any arbitrariness in the process adopted by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The Circular dated 28.09.2004 no doubt indicated revised rates under various categories depending on the model of the bus. The rates only indicate the maximum that can be payable and do not indicate minimum. The revised rates indicated by RTC would not prohibit engaging bus to ply on RTC routes if the bus owner is willing for a rate which is lesser than revised rates. Therefore, said Circular is of no assistance to the petitioner. In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 05th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman/M.D., Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur Region, Guntur District. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JGK}