IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12511 of 2008 Between: B. Santosh Reddy S/o. B. Buchi Reddy R/o. D.No. 6-86, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, O/o. Regional Manager Office, Jubilee Bus Station, Picket, Secunderabad. 2 Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, O/o. Regional Manager Office, Jubilee Bus Station, Picket, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus and grant stay on the Tender Auction NO. M2/122(24)/08-GHZ which will likely to take place on 18-6-2008 and to declare the auction as invalid illegal, and discard the above auction and further declare petitioner as the eligible legitimate and qualified bidder which the petitioner had participated vide tender auction No. M1/122(1)/07-HCR and pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SHIVARAMPRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.: K.MADHAVA REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO. 12511 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The Writ Petition is directed against the tender auction notice dated 18.6.2008, whereunder the APSRTC has solicited bids and tenders for sweeping, cleaning and maintenance of toilets, staff rest rooms and other facilities for the APSRTC at Raniganj, BHEL and Kukatpally depots. Earlier, a similar tender notification was issued on 26.5.2007. The petitioner was one of the bidders. According to the petitioner, himself, one Mr. B. Srinivas of Vashist Security Services and another Mr. Suresh Kumar quoted identical rates in their respective bids. Thereupon, the APSRTC held a lottery and declared Mr. B. Srinivas of Vashist Security Services to be the successful bidder and awarded the contract of cleaning and maintenance to him. The petitioner further pleads that even during the currency of the contract period, Srinivas could not perform upon the contract and dropped out. There upon the petitioner and the other bidder Mr. Suresh Kumar approached the Corporation by a representation dated 30.8.2007, requesting allotment of the work to them. Petitioner pleads that he was allotted the work of sweeping, cleaning and maintenance, as an interim measure on account of dropping out the contract by Mr. Srinivas of Vashist Security Services. The said position continues till date. The EMD of Rs. 15,000/- deposited by the petitioner at the time of bidding for the earlier contract, pursuant to the tender notification dated 26.5.2007 is still pending with the APSRTC. While so, the present tender notification is issued calling for fresh bids, which according to the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal. From the facts and circumstances stated above, there is no legal basis for the petitioner’s grievance. The petitioner was not the successful bidder as admitted. The contract was issued to Mr. Srinivas of Vashist Security Services. Therefore, there was a concluded contract pursuant to the earlier tender notification in favour of Mr. Srinivas and the said Srinivas dropped out his contract, as is alleged by the petitioner. The process of earlier tender notification came to be concluded. To tide over the exigencies of work, the petitioner was ad hoc permitted to perform cleaning and maintenance operations but not pursuant to a contract under the earlier tender notification nor in continuance of the contract in favour of Mr. Srinivas of Vashist Security Services. In the circumstances and in accordance with the established principles of the administrative law that public authorities will have to adopt a fair and transparent measure and process while awarding public works, the APSRTC has now issued the impugned tender notification dated 18.6.2008 soliciting bids for award of contracts for performing the cleaning and maintenance operations. If qualified, the petitioner may apply pursuant thereto but is not entitled to interdict the process of public tender. There is yet another factum fatal to the consideration of the writ petitioner. The petitioner has impleaded the Executive Director, APSRTC, and Regional Manager, Jubiliee Bus Station, Secunderabad, as respondents, without impleading the APSRTC by its Corporate title. Neither the Executive Director nor the Regional Manager of APSRTC are a State or instrumentality of the State within the meaning of the said expression under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. They are mere employees of the Corporation and are not liable to sue or be sued in that designation. For this reason, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. For all the reasons recorded above, there are no merits in the Writ Petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC Sri K. Madhava Reddy. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Date: 17.06.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 Executive Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, O/o. Regional Manager Office, Jubilee Bus Station, Picket, Secunderabad. 2 Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, O/o. Regional Manager Office, Jubilee Bus Station, Picket, Secunderabad. 3 2CD copies