THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.6208 of 2010 Date of Order: 04-08-2010 Between: Anil Kumar Singh ..petitioner and 1. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board rep.by the Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad and others. …Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.6208 of 2010 Oral Order : (Per Honourable Sri Justice A.Gopal Reddy) This writ petition, in the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL), is filed challenging the award of contract in favour of the 3rd respondent for collection of Octroi and Toll Tax through tender notification dated 08-10-2009 issued by the 1st respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Cantonment Officials themselves have collected Octroi and Toll Tax for a period of six months i.e. from 01-04-2009 to 04-10-2009 a sum of Rs.74.05 lakhs, now it has been leased out to the 3rd respondent for a sum of 7.90 crores for one year, which is 5½ times more. In the process, the contractor will collect Octroi and Toll Tax from the vehicle owners of two wheelers and four wheelers exorbitantly. He further contends that as there is only single tender of 3rd respondent, the same should not be accepted. When the third respondent—contractor failed to submit the bank guarantee, the Board resolved to issue notice to him, which is evident from the Resolution of the Board dated 27-04- 2010. Therefore, it should be declared that award of leasehold rights for collection of Octroi and Toll Tax in favour of the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 08-12-2009 and 12-01-2010 as arbitrary and unconstitutional. It is not disputed that pursuant to tender notification dated 08- 10-2009, the 3rd respondent offered his tender for collection of Octroi and Toll Tax; the same was also placed before the Board, who in turn, in its meeting held on 11-01-2010 considered and resolved to accept the single tender received from the 3rd respondent for Rs.3,50,00,000/- crores towards lease of collection rights of Octroi and Rs.4,40,00,000/- crores towards lease of collection of rights of Toll Tax from the date of handing over charge. The tender notification itself specifies the rates of amounts to be collected as per the tender schedule from the vehicle owners towards Toll Tax and also Octroi duty for the goods which were get into the cantonment area for consumption and sale. In view of the same, unless the tender notification and tender schedule specifying the rates and mode of collection is questioned, the present writ petition filed challenging the award of contract in favour of the 3rd respondent for collection of Octroi and Toll Tax cannot be entertained. On failure of third respondent to furnish bank guarantee, the 1st respondent has already issued necessary notice for furnishing the same. Hence, it is always open for the 1st respondent-Board to take appropriate action for furnishing bank guarantee and failure to do so, terminate the contract as per the tender conditions and this Court in writ petition filed in the form of PIL cannot direct the contractual party to cancel the contract, as any dispute arising out of such terms of contract or alleged breaches have to be settled by ordinary principles of law of contract. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. ___________ K.C.BHANU,J. 04-08-2010 Murthy