IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1649 of 2005 Between : K. Sankar Reddy, S/o K.Nageswara Reddy, Hindu, Plot No. 238, Jayanagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice Chairman/Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Hyderabad City Region, JBS, Picket, Secunderabad. 3 Bramaramba Mallikharjuna Swamy Travels, H.No. 22-115/4, Engineer Enclave, Gangaram, Chandanagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor Purnachander Rao. .....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 or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in not accepting the tender of the petitioner which is the lowest tender to route permit of Lingampally - Koti in HCU Depot on the ground that the petitioner has not accepted or a further lower rate of Rs. 10.38 Ps per km to ply the vehicle on the same route and on the other hand finalising the tender of the 3rd respondent who has quoted higher rate 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. 10.38 ps per km as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and consequently direct the respondents to finalise the tender of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 10.83 ps per km awarding bus route permit from Lingampally - Koti in HCU Depot and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT.A.GAYATRI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.K.MADHAVA REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : ORDER : This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondents in not accepting the tender of the petitioner for hiring of private bus service. Notification was issued on 19.12.2004, and as per the tender conditions, it is submitted that the period of agreement itself is for a period of three years. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 4th June 2009 ajr