The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.15067 of 2011 Date: 9th November, 2011 Between: G.Madhava Reddy ..... Petitioner and The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Roads, Transport and Buildings Dept., Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: ----- Counsel for respondent No.1: ----- Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Mr.C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, SC for APSRTC The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3, in issuing Notification, dated 21-05-2011, inviting tenders for sale of Reverse Osmosis (RO) treated drinking water in Chegunta Bus Stand, Medak District, as illegal and arbitrary. On 06-07-2011, the case was adjourned in view of non-appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Even today, when the case is called, there is no representation for the petitioner. I have heard Sri C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner was granted license for running STD booth, Bakery, Canteen and sale of mineral water sealed bottles, in the two stalls allotted by the respondents- APSRTC, at Chegunta Bus Stand. The deed of license is for a period of six years from 31-05- 2007 to 30-05-2013. By the impugned notification, tenders have been invited for establishment and sale of Reverse Osmosis (RO) treated drinking water at nominal rates in various bus stands including Chegunta Bus Stand. This notification is questioned by the petitioner on the sole ground that he holds the license for sale of mineral water, for a period of six years, and therefore, grant of such license to another person affects his business. A perusal of Clause 8 of the Deed of License issued in favour of the petitioner by the Corporation shows that allotment of the Canteen/Stalls/Shops etc., to the petitioner is on non-exclusive basis and the Corporation has reserved its right to grant license to more than one licensee to do same type of business in the same premises. In the face of this Clause, the petitioner does not have the exclusive right to sell mineral water. Even otherwise, while the petitioner was granted license for sale of mineral water through sealed bottles, by the impugned tender notification, the Corporation has proposed to promote the sale of drinking water through Reverse Osmosis on nominal rates. The line of activity, which is proposed to be permitted by the impugned notification, is, thus, different from the one, which has been granted to the petitioner. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.18097 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 9th November, 2011 LUR