HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32682 of 2011 Date: 27.12.2011 Between: K.Ramachandra Nayak ..... Petitioner And: The APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Reptd by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director And two others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not reserving the petitioner’s right to run canteen at Jadcherla Bus Station, Mahaboobnagar District, vide tender notification No.P1/255(1)/11-RM: MBNR, dated 11.11.2011, of respondent No.2, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner claims that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. He has averred that there are 13 stalls in Jadcherla Bus Station run by respondent No.1-Corporation. He has relied upon Circular No.13/2003-OPD(C), dated 13.02.2003, issued by the Vice Chairman and Managing Director of respondent No.1-Corporation and pleaded that under the said Circular, one out of five pucca stalls, and two out of ten or more pucca stalls at the Bus Station shall be earmarked/ reserved for Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/ and Poorer economically backward classes in non-scheduled areas. The immediate cause of action for the petitioner to file the present Writ Petition is tender notification published on 15.11.2011, wherein tenders are invited for running a canteen in Jadcherla Bus Station. According to the petitioner, so far, the respondents have not implemented the above-mentioned Circular, dated 13.02.2003, as none of the 13 stalls was given to any of the three categories for which reservation is made. At the hearing, learned counsel representing the learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, appearing for the respondents, submitted that the impugned tender notification pertains to canteen and not to any of the stalls; that, as there is only one canteen, there is no provision for reservation of the same to the categories mentioned in the said Circular; and that the said Circular has no application to canteens. He has also submitted that the tenders have already been finalised and licence for running the canteen has been given to the successful tenderer. On a perusal of the said Circular, I find merit in the submission of the learned counsel. The said Circular refers to ‘stalls’ and there is no reference to the ‘canteen’. Exclusion of canteens is understandable for the reason that ordinarily there will be only one canteen in every Bus Station and as such, it may not be feasible for reserving the canteen to any particular category. Sri Mummaneni Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, stated that the respondents may be directed to strictly implement the above-mentioned Circular atleast in future. Inasmuch as the Circular, dated 13.02.2003, has been in force from the year 2003, there is no justification for the respondents not to implement the same. So long as the said Circular is in force, the respondents are bound to implement the same. In this view of the matter, while declining to interfere with the tender notification impugned in this Writ Petition, the respondents are directed to implement circular, dated 13.02.2003, in future. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.40622 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 27th December 2011 DR