IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 13746 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sanitation & Environmental Development Society having its Registered Office at H.No. 9-1-41/16 Secunderabad , Rep. by its Authorized Signatory Ved Vas Pan S/o. Markandi Pandey 28 yrs, Occ: Authorities Signatory in Petitioner's Society O/o. H.No.9-1-41/6, Syndicate Bank Officers Colony, Hasmathpet, Old Bowenpally, Sec'bad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P.S.R.T.C. Head Office, Musherabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar 3 The Divisional Manager, Nagerkurnool Division, Nagerkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nagerkurnool Depot, Nagerkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 5 M/s. Om Shiva Sanitation Social Service Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, 12-11- 454, Varasiguda, Secunderabad-01 .....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 more particularly one in nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in terminating the licence in his proceedings No. P5/243(7)/2006-RM-MB dt. 17-6-2008 as wholly illegal, arbitrary and the same may be set aside and consequently declare that the contract dt. 1-11-2006 between the petitioner and the 2nd Respondent is subsisting pass such other or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.I.V.RADHAKRISHNA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: SMT.B.G.UMA DEVI The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION No : 13746 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petition is filed assailing the order of the second respondent bearing Reference No. P5/243(7)2006-RM-MB, dated 17.6.2008, terminating forthwith the licence granted to the petitioner with regard to the maintenance of bus station and upkeep of the toilets and bus station yards and safeguarding of bus stations of “G” Group Bus Stations of Nagar Kurnool, Bijinapally, Kollapur, Pentalvelly and Palem, under the control of the Divisional Manager, Nagar Kurnool, on no payment on either side by collecting user charges from the toilet users basis, for a period of two years from 1.11.2006 to 31.10.2008. The order impugned records that the Depot Manager, Nagar Kurnool had complained that the petitioner is not maintaining the bus stations and yards and due to the improper upkeep of the toilets, the bus stations are looking ugly and shabby; that the petitioner has deployed less personnel than the specified norms resulting in inconvenience to the travelling public and their health, due to which, a number of complaints are being received. The impugned order further records that the persons employed by the petitioner in terms of the licence were concentrating only on collection of the user charges and were not maintaining the bus stations and toilets and the petitioner has also failed to deploy a Supervisor to ensure efficient execution of the licence. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 26.5.2008, to which, the petitioner submitted an explanation on 14.6.2008. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the explanation of the petitioner was dated 14.6.2008, but it was submitted on 16.6.2008. The impugned order records that the explanation has been perused and no valid reasons are set forth in the explanation justifying the continuance of the contract and the licence is accordingly terminated. The relationship between the petitioner and the 1st respondent represented by the second respondent in respect of the works of maintenance and upkeep of the bus stations under an instrument of licence is not a statutory relationship. It is contractual. The licence has already been granted to the petitioner and therefore the stage is post-threshold. According to the respondents, the petitioner has violated the terms of the licence. The petitioner’s case is that the respondents have not fulfilled their part of the reciprocal obligation, which would have enabled the petitioner to maintain the bus depots properly. In any event, these are disputed questions of facts and having regard to the nature of the relationship, which is non-statutory, the petitioner has an appropriate efficacious and alternative remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction or before an Arbitrator, if there be an arbitral clause. Recourse to a writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate. In the management of the judicial branch too considerations of efficiency require allocation and division of responsibilities at the various levels of the hierarchy. As the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretion under Article 226 to entertain the grievance in the writ petition vide M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar and Others([1]) and Asst. Excise Commissioner vs. Issac Peter([2]). The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at the admission stage after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P.S.R.T.C. granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate alternative remedy. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM,J DATE: 30th June, 2008 Pnb To 1 The Managing Director. A.P.S.R.T.C. Head Office, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar 3 The Divisional Manager, Nagerkurnool Division, Nagerkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 4 The Depot Manger, A.P.S.R.T.C. Nagerkurnool Depot, Nagerkurnool, Mahabubnagar District. 5. Two C.D. copies ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER [1] AIR 1977 SC 1496 [2] 1994(4) SCC 104