THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18430 of 2009 Dated 03rd August, 2010 Between: Akhil Dhaba …Petitioner And The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Hyderabad, and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri K. Govind Reddy, for Sri K. Venu Madhav Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3: Sri K. Madhava Reddy standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. Counsel for respondent No.4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in stopping their new bus plied between Hyderabad and Amaravathi at respondent No.4 hotel point instead of the petitioner’s dhaba without calling for tenders and considering the petitioner’s representations dated 20.07.2009 and 24.07.2009, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is a dhaba, viz., Akhil Dhaba, located at Pandrakonda, Yavathmal District, Maharashtra State. It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that respondent Nos.1 to 3 run their buses which are three in number through the petitioner dhaba point between (i) Amaravathi and Hyderabad, (ii) Nagpur and Hyderabad and (iii) Nagpur and Hyderabad. It is further averred that the said buses were being stopped at the petitioner dhaba to facilitate the passengers to have refreshments, dinner etc., on the petitioner paying royalty to respondent Nos.1 to 3; that on coming to know that respondent Nos.1 to 3 were about to start a new bus service from Hyderabad to Amaravathi, the petitioner made representations dated 20.07.2009 and 24.07.2009 with a request to stop the said buses at its dabha. The grievance of the petitioner is that without accepting its request, new buses are being stopped at respondent No.4 hotel. According to the petitioner this action is wholly illegal. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Law Officer of A.P.S.R.T.C. on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 wherein it is stated that the petitioner has paid an amount of Rs.18,000/- on 29.12.2008 as royalty at the rate of Rs.50/- per day for two buses for the period from December, 2008 to May, 2009; that it has not entered into an agreement with respondent Nos.1 to 3 nor obtained permission letter from them and that however as per the promise made by respondent No.1 at the time of receipt of the abovementioned amount from the petitioner, the Corporation is stopping two services of Hyderabad Depot i.e., Hyderabad to Nagpur and Hyderabad to Amaravathi at the petitioner dhaba and that at no point of time, the official respondents promised or agreed to stop all services at its dhaba. It is further stated that respondent No.4 has submitted its representation on 25.07.2009 with a request to the Corporation to stop the buses at its dhaba and that it is prepared to pay royalty at the rate of Rs.75/- per bus per day which is accepted on experimental basis and that in compliance with the interim direction granted by this Court on 24.09.2009 to the official respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner, they were considered and rejected on 06.11.2009 under communication to the petitioner. At the hearing Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C. appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, has placed before this Court the rejection order dated 06.11.2009, receipt of which is not denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned standing counsel also placed certain circulars issued by the Corporation and its officials along with the counter-affidavit. Clauses 3 and 4 of the Circular dated 03.01.2004 issued by the Executive Director (O) of the Corporation, which are relevant for the present writ petition, read as under: “3. The Committee, after identifying the best Hotel/Dhaba suitable for stopping Inter-state services for Tea, Tiffin & Meals, shall negotiate with the Owner of such Hotel/Dhaba for payment of Royalty to Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, depending upon the Number of buses proposed to stop at that place. 4. Licence will be issued initially for a period of One year and renewable depending upon the satisfactory performance of the licencee.” Under the above reproduced clauses, it is incumbent upon the Corporation to follow the procedure envisaged therein and grant licences before stopping the buses. In the counter-affidavit, it is not pleaded that this procedure is followed and no reasons have been furnished for not following this procedure. Having laid down a procedure, it is obligatory and mandatory on the part of the Corporation and its officers to scrupulously follow the same. Failure to follow such procedure leads to patent arbitrariness and subjectiveness in decision making by the officers and it may more often lead to abuse of the power and discretion vested in them. Being the officers of the public utility Corporation, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are charged with the duty to act with fairness and transparency. In the present case, I am of the opinion that they have failed to discharge these duties and acted with arbitrariness by permitting the petitioner to pay royalty without granting licence. It is surprising that respondent No.1 is said to have made a promise to the petitioner to stop the buses. It is not explained as to under what power he has made such a promise. This Court is unable to approve the action of the officers of the Corporation in handling the whole affair pertaining to stoppage of buses at either the petitioner dhaba or respondent No.4 hotel. Even with respect to the service which is being stopped at respondent No.4 hotel, the Corporation and its officers failed to follow the procedure laid down in the said circular as it is not their pleaded case that any licence had been granted in its favour. As regards the relief to be granted to the petitioner, it is not in dispute that the representations of the petitioners have already been rejected. At any rate, the petitioner cannot claim any vested right in insisting that the Corporation should stop its buses at its dhaba. For the abovementioned reasons, while dismissing the writ petition, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to strictly adhere to its circulars including the one referred to above in allowing its buses to stop at the dabhas on its inter-state routes. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, the interim order dated 24.09.2009 is vacated and W.P.M.P.No.24117 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 03rd August, 2010 GHN