IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17643 of 2011 Between: G. Bangar Raju … Petitioner And The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Visakhapatnam & another. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri N. Srinivas Yadav Counsel for the respondents: Sri K. Madhava Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.17643 of 2011 ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside letter No.P4/797/(01)/11-RM-VSP, dated 18.04.2011, of respondent No.1. I have heard Sri N. Srinivas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned Standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. Respondent No.2 has invited tenders for running Biryani point in Nakkpalli bus stand. The petitioner and two others have filed their tenders. On opening the price bids, it came to light that the petitioner offered the highest bid amount i.e., Rs.2,229/- per month. However, by the impugned proceedings, respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioner’s tender on the ground that the Tender Committee has rejected his bid, as the offer is not encouraging and asked the petitioner to take back the demand draft given by him for Rs.5,000/-. Questioning the said action as arbitrary, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. Counter affidavit is filed by the Law Officer of APSRTC, wherein while stating that the petitioner has offered the highest bid amount, it is averred that the tender committee, after discussing the matter at length, came to the conclusion that the business for Biryani point may lead to un-hygienic atmosphere in and around the Nakkapalli bus station and it may lead to causing ill-health to the passengers/public and that for the said reason, the petitioner’s tender was rejected by invoking clause (vii) of the tender notice. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the reasons assigned by the respondents are at variance between the impugned proceedings, dated 18.04.2011 and the counter affidavit. The purported un- hygienic atmosphere pleaded in the counter affidavit is not mentioned in the impugned proceedings. Be that as it may, it is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that with a view to unduly deny the opportunity of running the business to the petitioner, the respondents have cancelled the tender process. It is trite that the right to take decisions as to how the corporation’s premises shall be used vests with the respondents. Ordinarily, this Court seldom interferes with such decisions, unless the same are found to be patently arbitrary or mala fide. By offering the highest bid amount, no indefeasible right is created in the petitioner. Despite inconsistency between the impugned proceedings and the counter affidavit, as no legal rights of the petitioner are infringed and the respondents have decided not to run the Biryani point and instead let out the same place for running a Cell point, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such a decision of the respondents. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.21218 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is also dismissed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.11.2011 ES