IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEALS NO :1887 & 1957 of 2003 (Writ Appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common Order dated 28/07/2003 in WP NO : 6897 OF 2001 & 3353/2002 on the file of the High Court.) WRIT APPEAL NO : 1887 of 2003 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C.,rep.by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director., Mushirabad., Hyderabad. 2 A.P.S.R.T.C.,rep.by its Regional Manager., Khammam. ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 Adarshan Adivasi Mahila Samithi rep.by its Secretary, Smt.Kalthi Neelima w/o Narayana., R/o Gandhinagar., Singareni Mandal., Khammam District. 2 Sree Rama Mahila Yuvajana Sangam rep.by its Secretary Smt Ch.Padma W/o Venkateswarlu., R/o Sudimella., Yellandu Mandal., Khammam District. 3 Sree Rama Yuvajana Sangam, rep.by its Secretary., Punam Bhadraiah R/o Rollapadu., Tekulapalli., Khammam District. 4 Jagadamba Gumpu rep.by its Secretary Sri Erpa Satyanarayana s/o Yerraiah., R/o Sudimella., Yellandu Mandal., Khammam District. 5 Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam rep.by its Secretary., Ch.Laxminarayana, s/o Gopaiah R/o Sudimella., Yellandu mandal., Khammam District. 6 The Agent to the Government., Khammam. 7 The Agency Divisional Officer., Bhadrachalam., Khammam District. 8 The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare., Telugu Samkshema Bhavan., Masab Tank., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.V.RAMANA WRIT APPEAL NO : 1957 of 2003 Between: 1 A.P.S.R.T.C., rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director Musheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional Manager A.P.S.R.T.C., Khamam ..... APPELLANTS AND 1 K.Dharma Rao S/o.Veeraiah R/o.Bhagavandas Colony Bhadrachalam Khammam District 2 Naidu Venkata Kanaka Durga Mutyala Rao 3 Smt.Jampava Jaya Lalitha 4 Smt.Namala Lakshmi Kumari .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant:SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEALS NO :1887 & 1957 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: ( Per the Honourable Sri.Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) While hearing the miscellaneous application seeking to expedite the hearing of the writ appeals, both Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, Standing Counsel for the Corporation and Sri P.V. Ramana, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners – respondents would agree that the writ appeals could themselves be finally heard today. While setting aside the orders impugned in both the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge had observed that even though the present transaction arose out of a non- statutory contractual obligation, since the very obligation was hit by the regulations, was contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court, further when there was patent error of law because of which injustice was being caused to the tribals and when they were deprived of their legitimate and legal right given to them under the Constitution, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction, to interfere with such matters. The learned Single Judge set aside the tender notiﬁcations impugned in both the writ petitions. The tender notiﬁcations were issued by the Corporation inviting applications from non-tribals for establishment of shops in the Bus stands of the Corporation situated in agency areas. The learned Single Judge after referring in detail to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Tribhuban Parkash Nayyar Vs. Union of India[1], and several provisions of the regulations, came to the conclusion that the action of the respondents in issuing such a notification was hit by the regulations in force. The order of the learned Single Judge is well considered and does not necessitate interference in appeal. Smt. P. Rajani Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Corporation would, however, contend that the reason for issuing the notiﬁcation, inviting applications from non- tribals, was because of inadequate response from them to the earlier notiﬁcations. Sri P.V. Ramana, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners – respondents, would, however, submit that there is no basis for such a contention and that it is not even the case of the appellants that, in the present case, adequate applications had not been received from tribals. Ends of Justice should be met if the corporation were permitted to issue a notification afresh inviting applications from tribals only. Needless to state that in case adequate applications are not received from the tribals for all the shops notiﬁed, it is always open to the appellant- corporation to act in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, both the writ appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meenakumari ____________________________ Justice Ramesh Ranganathan Dated: 2.9.2008 Nn/gurc. HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEALS NO :1887 & 1957 of 2003 (Common Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Honourable Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) 2nd September, 2008 [1] (1969) 3 SCC 99