IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8503 of 2005 Between: 1 Kommanaboyina Srinivasa Rao, S/o. K.Ramaiah, on Plat Form No.1, Chirala Railway Station, Prakasam District. 2 B.Siva Kumar, S/o. B.Appla Raju, Railway Station, Plat Form No.1, Visakhapatnam District. 3 S.Malleswari, W/o. S.Balaram, Railway Station, Plat Form No.2 & 3, Visakhapatnam District. 4 M.Varalaxmi, D/o. Kanakaiah, Gudivada Railway Station, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Divisional Railway Manager, (Commercial), Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada. 2 The Senior Divisional Manager, (Commercial), Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway, Vijayawada. 3 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad (R3 is impleaded as per court order dt. 8-9-2005 in WPMP 22226 of 2005) .....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 writ order or direction or Writ more particular one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned paper notification in proceeding No.PUB/374/05, dt.04-04-2005 in canceling the notification No.B/C/14/STD Phones-ISD-PCO/Local Call/Fax/Internet Booth/BZA/01,dt.31-08-2003 by stating that fresh notification will be issued for allotment of STD booths over BZA division even though petitioners are allotted the said booths by issuing the allotment letters for a period of 5 years i.e., up to 2009 pursuant to the above notification dt.31-08-2003, even through petitioners are running the STD booths for the last six months by spending an amount Rs.1,50,000/- each per erection of the STD booths etc., as prima facie illegal, high unwarranted, gross violation of principles of natural justice, violative of article 14,16, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the above said stated impugned paper notification of the 1st respondent dt.4-4- 2005 with a further direction to allow the petitioners to run the STD booth till expiry of the period i.e., up to 2009. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.RATHANGA PANI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.GOURI SHANKAR SANGHI The Court made the following : ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed challenging the notification, issued by the first respondent, published in the newspaper on 04-04-2005, canceling the earlier notification, dated 31- 08-2003, issued vide Tender Notice No.B/C.14/STD Phones-ISD-PCO/Local Call/FAX/ Internet Booths/BZA/01, calling for tenders for allotment of STD Booths. The respondents have issued notification on 31-08- 2003 inviting bids to operate STD/ISD/PCO/Fax/Internet booths in 9 “A” class stations and 9 “B” class stations. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioners have submitted their sealed tenders. After evaluation of the tenders, all the petitioners were declared as qualified and eligible being the highest bidders and pursuant to the same the second respondent issued allotment letters to the petitioners in proceedings No.B/C.14/STD Booths/CLX/2004/28.12.2004, B/C.14/ STD Booths/AKP/2004/17.02.2004, B/C.14/STD Booths/AKP /2004 /17.02.2004, B/C.14/STD Booths/GDV/2004/17.02.2004 respectively by awarding the contract for running the STD booths for a period of five years from the date of allotment letter. It is a case of the petitioners that in view of the acceptance of their offers, they have already complied with the conditions and after erecting the STD booths by spending huge amounts, they are running the same. While so, the first respondent issued the impugned notification canceling the earlier notification, dated 31-08- 2003. Precisely, it is the case of the petitioners that as the tenders of the petitioners have already been accepted, there is no authority or jurisdiction for the respondents to cancel the notification, after accepting the offers of the petitioners. At the stage of admission, this Court, by order, dated 19-04-2005, granted interim suspension and on the vacate stay petition filed by the respondents, the suspension order was confined only to STD and PCO Booths allotted to the petitioners. It is submitted by Sri B.H.R.Chowdary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that in view of the change of policy for setting up STD/ISD booths, the impugned notification is issued. In this case it is to be seen that the offers of the petitioners were accepted only for a period of five years from the date of operation of STD booth and the same is communicated through proceedings as mentioned above. Though it is stated that a new policy is notified, but the same is to be given prospective operation to set up the booth for which offers are not accepted by the date of the revised policy. In any event, as much as the petitioners have started and operating their booths in view of the interim order passed by this Court, and very acceptance of the bids is for a period of five years, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition permitting the petitioners to continue the remaining period so as to complete five years from the date of starting of operation of the STD booth by them. It is also made clear that after expiry of the said period of five years, as referred above, it is open to the respondents to re-notify for allotment of STD/ISD /PCO/Fax/Internet booths as per the revised policy. Subject to above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 16th July, 2009 skmr