THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3080 of 2011 Date: 24.08.2011 Between: T. Venkateswarlu … Petitioner And Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bavan, RTC Cross roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director and two others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 3080 of 2011 O R D E R : The petitioner herein was granted a licence by the A.P.State Road Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) for maintenance of toilet blocks, sweeping, cleaning, washing of bus station yard and its premises at Dilsukhnagar Bus Station for a period of two years i.e. from 08.11.2008 to 07.11.2010. As per clause 2 (a) of the deed of licence dated 23.10.2008 entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation the period of licence is extendable for two more years based on the satisfactory performance subject to fulfilling the terms and conditions specified therein. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has successfully executed the works and the contract period of two years expired on 07.11.2010. While so, the Corporation issued a fresh tender notice dated 24.01.2011 inviting tenders for the works in question. As a stop gap arrangement, the period of contract in favour of the petitioner was extended by three months i.e., from 08.11.2010 to 07.02.2011 or till finalization of tenders whichever is earlier. Aggrieved by the said action of the Corporation in extending the period of contract only for three months instead of two years as provided under clause 2(a) of the deed of licence and inviting fresh tenders by issuing tender notice dated 24.01.2011, the present writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the Corporation is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the agreement dated 23.10.2008 as well as the circulars dated 26.02.2004 and 15.01.2010. It is pleaded in the writ petition that as per clause 9 of Circular dated 26.02.2004, the contract shall be for a period of two years and if the performance is satisfactory the contract can be extended up to a maximum period of four years. Similarly, as per the subsequent Circular dated 15.01.2010 the licence period shall be for a period of four years which can be extended for one more year on the satisfactory performance of the Social Service Organization. While relying upon a certificate issued by the depot manager, APSRTC Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad certifying that the performance of the petitioner was good and satisfactory, it is contended by the petitioner that the action of the Corporation in inviting fresh tenders without extending the contract of the petitioner for a further period of two years is arbitrary and illegal. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation it is explained that revised instructions with regard to allotment of maintenance contracts at bus stations to the Social Service Organizations (SSO) have been issued by the Corporation vide Circular dated 15.01.2010 and as per the said circular separate tenders have to be called for (1) cleaning, sweeping of bus station premises, yard and platforms and (2) maintenance of toilets. It was therefore decided by the Corporation to invite separate tenders after expiry of the existing contracts. In the light of the circular dated 15.01.2010 separating the works of cleaning the bus stations and maintenance of toilets, the contract period of the petitioner was not extended and the impugned tender notice dated 24.01.2011 was issued inviting fresh tenders separately for the two works. It is also explained that large number of complaints were received frequently from the travelling public on the bad maintenance of toilets, cleanliness of the bus station premises and in particular collection of excess of user charges by the contractors. Having examined the said complaints, it was decided by the Corporation to call for separate tenders for cleaning of the bus stations and maintenance of toilets and accordingly circular dated 15.01.2010 was issued in the interest of the public. Therefore, no mala fides can be attributed to the respondents and the impugned tender notice was rightly issued in terms of the circular dated 15.01.2010. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The licence period of two years granted to the petitioner expired on 7.11.2010 and the dispute raised in this writ petition is only with regard to the petitioner’s entitlement for renewal for a further period of two years. It is true that Clause- 2(a) of the Deed of Licence provided for extension of licence for two more years based on the satisfactory performance. It may also be true that the performance of the petitioner during the period of licence was satisfactory. However a policy decision has been taken by the Corporation to invite separate tenders for allotment of the works relating to cleaning of Bus-stations and maintenance of toilets. Accordingly, Circular dated 15.01.2010 has been issued to implement the said policy decision after expiry of the existing contracts. The Circular dated 15.01.2010 as well as the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation disclosed that the Corporation has decided to separate the works of cleaning the Bus- stations and maintenance of toilets and to invite tenders separately for the two works keeping in view the complaints received from the travelling public. Having regard to the said policy decision which was taken by the Corporation in the interest of the public, even assuming that the petitioner’s plea that his performance is satisfactory is correct, it cannot be held that the petitioner has acquired a right for renewal. It is not in dispute that under the licence dated 23.10.2008 the petitioner was entrusted both the works of cleaning of Bus-stations and maintenance of toilets. Now that the Corporation has taken a policy decision to separate the said works, the petitioner’s request for renewal was rightly rejected by the Corporation. It is also relevant to note that no mala fides are alleged against the respondents. Hence, the impugned action of the respondents cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal and the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 24.08.2011 KLP