THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.861 OF 2011 ORDER: The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) issued notification dated 8.12.2010 inviting applications from the private entrepreneurs for supply of Pallevelugu buses on hire on various routes in Adilabad District. Pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner and the respondent No.3 had applied along with others. On 28.12.2010 the 3rd respondent herein was selected and he was allotted Route No.14. Thereafter, the present writ petition came to be filed on 11.01.2011 seeking a declaration that condition No.4 of the tender schedule which provided that the selection would be on the basis of lottery system is arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought a direction to select the entrepreneur who quoted the lowest price. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that altogether 43 persons had participated in response to the notification dated 18.12.2010 and all of them quoted the same rate of Rs.14-52 ps. per km. Therefore, the Tender Committee had adopted the lottery system as stipulated under condition No.4, in which the 3rd respondent herein was selected. It is also contended that the writ petitioner having participated in the tender process without raising any objection cannot now challenge the validity of the tender condition. In the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is further explained that in condition No.4 though the word ‘competition’ was used, the intention and meaning of the said word could have been more specific, and that instead of mentioning the word ‘competition’, the word ‘tie’ would have been more appropriate, and the Corporation is taking steps to alter the condition No.4 suitably in future. I have also heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Condition No.4 which is impugned in the writ petition reads as under: “Condition No.4: In case of competition, the selection of entrepreneur will be on the basis of lottery system.” Though the above condition is not happily worded and there appears to be some ambiguity, it is clear that the Corporation intended to make selection on the basis of lottery system only when same rate is quoted by all the applicants. Be that as it may, the petitioner had admittedly participated in the tender process without seeking any clarification and without raising any objection with regard to the above condition. Though it is contended in the writ petition that the petitioner raised an objection with regard to the validity of Condition No.4, the said plea has been denied in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation. No other material could be placed before this Court to show that the petitioner had raised any such objection before submitting his application. As could be seen from the counter-affidavit, the Corporation has completed the tender process following due process of law and the present writ petition came to be filed long after the 3rd respondent was allotted the work. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Corporation that the writ petition is not bona fide and that it is nothing but an attempt to stall the proceedings. As a matter of fact, in the additional counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that the Corporation would take steps to incorporate appropriate conditions in future tenders. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be a direction to the Corporation to amend Condition No.4 suitably to avoid any similar disputes in future. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.09.2011 Note:- CC by 24.09.2011 (B/O) CHV