THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10517 of 2007 Date: 17.04.2008 Between: P.Mallesh … Petitioner AND The A.P.S.R.T.C., Rep by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar. And another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri P.Veera Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri P.Vinayaka Swamy HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.10517 of 2007 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in allotting stall No.11 to the petitioner to enable him to have three shops in a row for doing his business as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner had been allotted stall Nos.10, 12 and 13 in the Mahboobnagar Bus Station. Evidently, the petitioner requested the respondents for allotment of stall No.11 which is in continuation to stall Nos.12 and 13. Tenders were called for through notification dated 13.11.2006 for allotment of stall No.11 which admittedly fell vacant in the month of October, 2006. But the petitioner did not participate in the tender process and filed the present writ petition to declare the inaction of the respondents in allotting stall No.11 to him. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner was allotted stall Nos.10, 12 and 13 and as per the tender committee recommendations, he paid security deposits for the three shops but did not execute the agreement nor paid licence fee continuously for stall No.12 and 13. It is further averred that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 28.7.2005 requested the then existing licensee of shop No.11 to accommodate the petitioner on humanitarian grounds but the said licensee did not accept the same, that the petitioner was informed in the month of October, 2006 that stall No.11 fell vacant and notification was issued on 13.11.2006 for allotment of stall No.11 and the petitioner neither participated in the tender process nor occupied stall Nos.12 and 13 till date. It is also alleged that vide letter dated 8.5.2007 allotment of stall Nos.12 and 13 was cancelled. No rejoinder affidavit is filed to controvert the allegations in the counter affidavit. Having heard Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents, I am of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more reasons than one. 1) The petitioner cannot claim vested right for allotment of Stall No.11 without participating in the tender process. He did not deny the fact that he has not participated in the tender process in pursuance of notification dated 13.11.2006 in which stall No.11 was notified as vacant; and, 2) With the cancellation of licence for stall Nos.12 and 13, the very premise, namely, to have three stalls in a row for carrying on business, on which the petitioner sought for allotment of stall No.11 looses its basis. For the above-mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.13250 of 2007 filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief is also dismissed. ___________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:17.04.2008 mdaa