THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7370 of 2011 Dated 22.03.2011 Between: Sree Ranganadh …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Roads Transport Corporation, Chittoor and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy Counsel for respondents: Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, standing counsel for APSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside the corrigendum No.T2/122(75)/2001 RM(T) dated 22.02.2011 of the Regional Manager, Chittoor Region of respondent No.1 Corporation. I have heard Sri K.Suresh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In response to the tender notice issued by respondent No.1 Corporation, the petitioner submitted his tender for running a pan and cool drinks store at Chittoor – I Depot, Bangarupalem. The petitioner emerged as the highest tenderer and accordingly, the stall was allotted in his favour by order dated 04.12.2010. Later, the Regional Manager of respondent No.1 Corporation issued corrigendum dated 22.02.2011, wherein the words “Bangarupalem Bus Station” are substituted for the words “Bangarupalem Bus Shelter”. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned corrigendum is illegal. It is his contention that having issued the proceedings permitting the petitioner to run the stall at Bangarupalem bus shelter, respondent No.1 Corporation is not justified in changing the place of business. Having carefully considered the above submission with reference to the material available on record, I do not find any force in the same. A perusal of the order dated 04.12.2010 shows that the words “Bangarupalem bus station” were originally mentioned therein but the word “station” was struck off and in its place the word “shelter” was written with pen. Obviously, realising that the said change incorporated in the order is contrary to the tender notice itself, which in clear terms indicated the place where the stalls are required to be run, namely, bus stations and not bus shelters, the impugned corrigendum has been issued by respondent No.1 Corporation. The correction of the place where the petitioner is required to run the stall is thus in conformity with the tender notice. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of the error committed (wittingly or otherwise) by the officials of respondent No.1 Corporation. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the corrigendum issued by respondent No.1 Corporation. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. As sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.9187 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 22nd March, 2011 GHN