IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13345 of 2010 Between: G.Rathnakar Reddy … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue (Excise) Department. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13345 of 2010 ORDER:- 1. This writ petition has been filed by G.Rathnakar Reddy, assailing the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notification only in respect of shop No.2 Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District and not calling for tenders in respect of all the four shops in Gadwal, Mahabubnagar District by rejecting the single tenders. 2. The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad-2nd respondent herein, issued notification which was published in District Gazette, Mahabubnagar No.18/2010, dated 27.05.2010 giving notice of auction to grant lease of right to sell Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor by shop under Rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of right of selling by shop and conditions of licence) Rules, 2005. In the said notification, all the shops in Mahabubnagar District about 169 were notified. Insofar as, Gadwal municipality is concerned, four shops were notified and for three shops, single tenders were filed. With regard to the fourth shop, no person submitted tender. Hence, the Collector and District Magistrate-3rd respondent herein, issued notification, dated 08.06.2010 calling for tenders in respect of only one shop, for which no tenders were received earlier. The grievance of the petitioner is that the 3rd respondent ought to have called for all the four shops, which were notified earlier instead of calling tenders only in respect of one shop. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer para 5 in the affidavit: “It is respectfully submitted that in so far as the shop which are also notified in the same gazette notification and which are in and around Gadwal Town for each shop there are minimum three tenderers. For example Mandakal, Leeja and Jammiched, there are minimum of three or four bidders in respect of each of the shop and curiously only for the shops at Gadwal, there is only a single tender in respect of all the three shops and no bid in respect of one shop. It is also pertinent to mention here that in so far as single tenders are concerned, the department has cancelled the single tenders at Rajampeta and Jammalamadugu and re-notified the tenders and curiously in so far as the shops at Gadwal are concerned, the 2nd respondent has not taken any decision for re-notification. It is submitted that there is no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent is not following a uniform policy in the entire state where the auctions are conducted. The 2nd respondent ought to have seen that except the shops notified in Gadwal in respect of all the shops, there are more than three bids and ought to have conducted an enquiry and re-notified the shop. It is submitted that there is no justification on the part of the 2nd respondent in not re-notifying the shops located at Gadwal. Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the action of the 2nd and 3rd respondents is not legal and valid.” 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise received notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing notification only in respect of one shop is arbitrary and therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the 3rd respondent to notify all the four shops. 6. Learned Government Pleader submits that the re-notification came to be issued in respect of one shop, as no one offered tender in respect of that shop pursuant to the earlier notification. 7. Indisputably, the 3rd respondent issued notification in respect of four shops earlier. For three shops, tenders have been received and they have not yet finalised. With regard to the fourth shop, no one submitted the tender, which made the 3rd respondent to issue fresh notification, dated 08.06.2010. The petitioner is not the person who submitted tender pursuant to the earlier notification. Therefore, it cannot be said that the rights of the petitioner are violated by the 3rd respondent in issuing fresh tender in respect of the fourth shop. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 15th June 2010 lmv