IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5207 of 2004 Between: C.R. Kumar, S/o. C. Koteswar Rao, R/o. House No.40-27-5/1, Second Floor, Near Pinnamaneni poly-clinic, Municipal Employees Colony, Vijayawada. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Vice-Chairman, The Buddha Poornima project Authority/Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, 1-8-323, Paigah Palace, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad. 2 The Principal Secretary, The A.P.Tourism Dept.,Govt.of A.P.III Floor, A-block, Secretariat, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction or order or writ, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the notification bearing No.27214/CE/HUDA/MC/TW/2003 dated 17-1-2004 as published in the Economic Times newspaper dated 7-2-2004, issued by the respondent no.1 and 2, to the extent of Mono cable aerial tourist tram- way, as null and void, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. M. GOVIND REDDY Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. M. Surender Rao Counsel for respondent No.2: Govt. Pleader for Dept. of Tourism The Court made the following Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the notification bearing Notice No.27214/CE/HUDA/MC/TW/2003, dated 17-01-2004, issued by the first respondent, Vice-Chairman, The Buddha Poornima Project Authority. 2. By the aforesaid notification, The Buddha Poornima Project Authority, which is constituted under G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 12-12-2000, sought expression of interest for setting up of several projects/activities on Build, Operate and Transfer basis. One such project is construction of Mono Cable/Aerial Tramway from Sanjeevaiah Park to Lumbini Park. It is stated that earlier also there was a notification issued by Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, through its Department of Tourism, by which expression of interest was invited for several tourism-related projects and in the said notification it was notified that unique and innovative concepts would be given preference. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the said notification, the petitioner wanted to construct an aerial tramway and for the said purpose collected useful material and, by making investments, sent one of his officers to Moscow to workout the said project. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though he had already made huge investment and collected useful information with an intention to undertake construction of an aerial tramway, the first respondent has issued notification dated 17-01-2004 with regard to the aerial tramway project, inviting expression of interest. 3. The impugned notification is mainly questioned on two grounds. One is that as the petitioner has already worked out a plan to construct aerial tramway by making substantial investment, no notification could have been issued by the first respondent inviting expression of interest for construction of the said project. The other is that the first respondent-authority, which is constituted under Section 3-A of Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, cannot indulge in business activities as it has come into existence only for the purpose of development of urban areas. In support of the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment in the case of Attorney General v. Fulham Corporation[1]. 4. With regard to the first notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, through its Department of Tourism, there is no specific invitation for expression of interest with regard to the project in question, i.e. construction of an aerial tramway from Sanjeevaiah Park to Lumbini Park. Merely because it was notified that unique and innovative concepts will be given preference, in absence of specific allotment of work to the petitioner or any contract entered into with him by the second respondent with regard to the said project the petitioner could not have deemed on his own that he would undertake the project in question. Though the petitioner alleges that he had made investments and sent one of his officers to Moscow for the purpose of the project in question, it was on his own that he had done so in absence of any work being allotted to him by the second respondent. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that inviting expression of interest for construction of an aerial tramway would amount to doing business cannot also be accepted for the reason that the Government, in exercise of powers under Section 3-A of the Act, has issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.575 dated 12-12-2000 creating Special Area Development Authority for the purpose of equipping/developing urban areas with projects like theme parks, water sports, amusement rides and water slides. It is to be seen that in view of constitution of the first respondent-authority, covering an area of 902 hectares, the impugned notification is issued inviting expression of interest for constructing aerial tramway within the notified area. It is not in dispute that construction of aerial tramway is proposed within the area notified in the aforesaid G.O. As much as construction of an aerial tramway is a part of developmental activity, it cannot be said that the first respondent does not have jurisdiction to issue the impugned notification. Though reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Attorney General (1 supra), having regard to the fact situation in the present case, the said judgment would not render any assistance to him and cannot be applied to the present case. 5. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned notification issued by the respondents. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. June 3, 2009 MRR/amd ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA} [1] (1917) 2 Ch. 205