THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.17458 of 2011 Dated 25th November, 2011 Between: B.Prabhakar Rao …Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri C.Rama Chandra Raju Counsel for respondents: Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is ﬁled for a mandamus to set aside proceedings bearing No.P2/122 (02)/2011, dated 04.06.2011, of respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner’s tender was purportedly cancelled. The respondents have issued a notiﬁcation calling for tenders for running stalls in various bus stations, including a canteen in Siddipet bus station on 18.01.2011. The petitioner is one among the persons, who ﬁled their tenders. The tenders were opened on 31.03.2011 and the petitioner has emerged as the highest oﬀerer. Negotiations were held with the petitioner by the tender committee and before the tender was ﬁnalised in favour of the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed purportedly cancelling his tender. A perusal of the impugned communication shows that no speciﬁc reasons have been assigned therefor. However, Circular No.12/11-OPD(C), dated 21.03.2011, is referred in the said proceedings. Feeling aggrieved by this action on the part of the respondents, the petitioner ﬁled the present writ petition. A counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner quoted monthly licence fees of Rs.90,999.99 ps, apart from enclosing a DD for Rs.4,00,000/-, towards EMD, that negotiations were completed by 11.03.2011 and that in the meantime, the Chief Commercial Manager, Head Oﬃce, has communicated letter, dated 08.03.2011, that the Vice-Chairman & Managing Director ordered not to call for tenders for allotment of canteens at the major A & B class bus stations, where licence period has already expired or to expire in future until further orders. It is further stated that the Selection Committee on coming to know about the instructions given in Circular No.12/2011-OPD(C), dated 21.03.2011, issued by the Vice- Chairman & Managing Director, whereunder it is provided that the licence period of canteens in major A & B class bus stations shall be for a initial period of seven years, which can be extended for a period of three years based on the satisfactory performance of the licensee, and as the contract period, which is envisaged in the tender notice in the instant case, is only for ﬁve years, the petitioner’s tender has been cancelled. Even though the respondents have not ﬁled a copy of the letter, dated 08.03.2011, of the Chief Commercial Manager, Head Oﬃce, referred to in the counter aﬃdavit, the petitioner has ﬁled the same along with the reply aﬃdavit. A perusal of this letter would show that the Vice-Chairman & the Managing Director ordered not to call for the tenders for allotment of the canteens whose licence has expired or to expire in future until further orders. This communication according to the respondents has constituted the main basis for cancelling the petitioner’s tender. There is nothing in this communication which would indicate that the same is intended to be given retrospective operation. The settled legal principle is that administrative orders are prospective in nature, unless they are expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective eﬀect (see Government of Andhra Pradesh and others v. Sri Sevadas Vidyamandir High School and others[1]). Admittedly, by the time the above-mentioned communication, dated 08.03.2011, and circular dated 21.03.2011, were issued, the petitioner’s tender was already considered and even negotiations were almost complete. Even though the petitioner does not have indefeasible right for insisting on award of contract merely because his is the highest oﬀer, the facts and circumstances do not justify the respondents to cancel the tender by seeking to apply the circular and the executive instructions to the tender process which was already commenced and about to be completed. As noted above, the communication of the head oﬃce issued on 08.03.2011 does not cover the case of canteens, where tender process is already commenced. Even if the respondents have reserved their right to cancel the tender notiﬁcation or reject any tender without assigning any reasons, the law is settled that the respondents being the instrumentalities of the State cannot be permitted to act arbitrarily to the detriment of the citizens’ interests. As I ﬁnd no justiﬁcation for cancelling the tender of the petitioner, the impugned proceedings are set aside. The respondents are directed to complete the negotiations with the petitioner and ﬁnalise the tender within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.20983 of 2011 and W.V.M.P.No.3373 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 25th November, 2011 VGB [1] (2011) 9 SCC 613