IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5920 of 2010 Between: 1.Civil Supplies Corporation Second Stage Transportation Beneficiaries Welfare Association Rep. by President, B.Balachandra Rao and 14 others. ..... Petitioners AND 1.The Andhra Pradesh State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, rep. by its Vice Chairman-cum- Managing Director, C.S.Bhavan, Somajiguda, Hyderabad and 2 others. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Civil Supplies The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside tender notice, dated 05-03-2010, issued by respondent No.3 for the purpose of transportation of food grains under Stage-II in East Godavari District. I have heard Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, and perused the record. The petitioners were, at one point of time, awarded with works of transportation of food grains under a scheme evolved by the respondents and the petitioners derived the benefit therefrom. When the said scheme was discontinued and the works were sought to be entrusted by following the tender procedure, the petitioners filed W.P.No.23110 of 2008. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court by order, dated 22nd December, 2008, wherein it was held as under: “The petitioners have no vested right whatsoever. If the present notification contemplates Stage II transportation by lorries etc., that cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal on the part of the respondents. This aspect cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Having held as above, this Court, however, obviously taking a sympathetic view of the matter, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for being engaged as contractors for transportation of goods since they all belong to the Scheduled Caste community. Accordingly, respondent No.1 considered the petitioners’ representation and rejected the same by order, dated 09-03-2009. In the said order, the entire history of litigation indulged in by the petitioners has been traced and it was held that the petitioners have no vested right to seek continuance of the earlier benefits and instead they were permitted to participate in the tender process. The petitioners have not immediately questioned the said order and after lapse of more than one year, they filed the present Writ Petition when fresh tenders have been called for. As held by this Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the petitioners have no vested right to insist that the works should be continued to be given to them on nomination basis. The earlier scheme was, obviously, framed to encourage the persons, who are financially weak, to procure their own tractors from the loans advanced by the Scheduled Caste Cooperative Society and in order to enable them to repay such loans, entrustment of works on nomination basis was envisaged. It is not in dispute that from the year 1988, the petitioners derived the said benefit. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioners cannot insist that the beneficial scheme, which is an exception to the normal procedure of entrustment of works through tender process, cannot be directed to be continued infinitely. Under the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to grant relief to the petitioners. The petitioners are, however, permitted to participate in the tender process. For the abovementioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7649 of 2010, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 17th March, 2010 lur