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 : 1301 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. .....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 order 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 the routes of permit of Hafeezpet to Secunderabad in HCU Depot and Secunderabad/JDM to Jiyaguda route in BKP Depot on the ground that the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to accept the tenders at lower rates than the rates quoted by the petitioner to the bus routes and on the ground not accepting the tenders and not even returning application fee to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and contrary to the Circular No. 44/2004-OPd (PLG) dated 28-9-2004 issued by the 1st respondent and consequently direct the respondents to finalise the tenders to the petitioner to the routes of Hafeezpet to Secunderabad and Secunderabad/Jeedimetla to Jiyaguda at the rates quoted by the petitioner forthwith and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SMTA.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