THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 23759 of 2008 O r d e r: The petitioner, who claims to be the Authorized Agent for Online Passenger Reservation System, for sale of bus tickets of APSRTC, at Old Gajuwaka Point, has filed this writ petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the following relief: To issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to facilitate to commence the business of the petitioner of selling tickets to travelling public of APSRTC at Old Gajuwaka Point by preventing the others in selling the tickets at Old Gajuwaka Point by declaring the action of respondent No.3 in permitting M/s. Sai Ram Agencies in selling tickets to the travelling public of APSRTC at Gajuwaka Point as ultra vires, arbitrary capricious and in violation of the conditions of Tender Notification dated 03.04.2008 and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The petitioner states that pursuant to the Tender Notification dated 03.04.2008 issued by respondent No.3, namely the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Dwaraka Bus Station, for engaging Authorized Agents for sale of bus tickets of APSRTC through Online Passenger Reservation System, he was the highest bidder in respect of Old Gajuwaka Point. That after he paid the security deposit and bid amount, respondent No.3 entered into a Deed of Licence, which is valid for a period of three years from 14.10.2008 to 13.10.2011. While so, it is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3 contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and the Deed of Licence, has permitted another person, who has not even participated in the tender process, to sell the tickets at Old Gajuwaka Point. That he made representation dated 18.10.2008 to respondent No.3 requesting him to stop the said person from selling the bus tickets, but no action thereon had been taken. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, their Law Officer filed counter stating that initially one Sri K. Dora Babu was the highest bidder in respect of Old Gajuwaka Point, whose Deed of Licence was valid for a period of three years from 19.01.2005 to 18.01.2008. As no fresh notification was issued, the same was extended in his favour for a period of one year from 19.01.2008 to 18.01.2009. Though the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of Old Gajuwaka Point, for a period of three years from 14.10.2008 to 13.10.2011, but because of the extension granted to Sri. K. Dora Babu, he continued to sell tickets till 18.01.2009. He denied the contention of the petitioner that only Old Gajuwaka Point was notified, and submitted that apart from Old Gajuwaka Point, four other Points were notified in Gajuwaka, which has a radius of four kilo metres. The petitioner is the highest bidder in respect of the newly notified point in Gajuwaka. It is contended that due to traffic congestion, Old Gajuwaka, Anakapally Bus Stop Shelter, where Sri Dora Babu, was running his Agency, had been shifted to another place opposite to 38 Bus Stop towards NAD X Road from Gajuwaka, on the instructions of Traffic Police. The petitioner is at liberty to commence his business, and he has no right whatsoever to contend that except himself, no other person should be allowed to sell the tickets, and more so when Clause 19 of the Deed of Licence, entered by respondent No.3 with the petitioner, enables the respondents to open extra points in a particular area. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. By filing the present writ petition, the petitioner, in effect is seeking directions to the respondents to enforce the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification as also the Deed of Licence, which this Court cannot direct. If respondent No.3, contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and the Deed of Anakapally Bus Stop Shelter to another place opposite to 38 Bus Stop towards NAD X Road from Gajuwaka, at which place one Sri Dora Babu, is said to be doing ATB Agency. And that the present problem has arisen due to such shifting. If by reason of such shifting or if respondent No.3, contrary to the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and the Deed of Licence, has effected such shifting and permitted another person to sell the bus tickets at the point, in respect of which he is the highest bidder, which has resulted in causing of loss to him, then the remedy of the petitioner is to either approach the respondents for resolution of such dispute amicably or approach the competent civil Court for redressal of their grievance. However, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of India, cannot give any positive directions, as prayed for by the petitioner, particularly to restrain some other persons from selling bus tickets of APSRTC, at a particular point. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: The petitioner may approach the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, for redressal of his grievance, and if the petitioner makes any such approach, the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, shall consider the grievance of the petitioner by giving him an opportunity of hearing, and settle the dispute amicably, without taking any reference to the orders dated 25.10.2008 passed by him on the representation of the petitioner. However, if the Regional Manager, Visakhapatnam, fails to resolve the dispute or redress his grievance, then he is at liberty to approach the competent civil Court, for enforcement of the contractual obligations arising out of the terms and conditions of the Tender Notification and the Deed of Licence, seeking appropriate reliefs, including damages for the loss, if any, suffered by him, on account of the respondents allegedly permitting some other person to operate as Authorized Agent, at the point in respect of which he is the highest bidder. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 6th March, 2009 KSR