IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 1502, 2677 AND 2669 OF 2010 Between: G.Thimma Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Kurnool, Kurnool District and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION Nos. 1502, 2677 AND 2669 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : One G.Thimma Reddy is the petitioner in these three writ petitions. He was awarded by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation three works under different agreements namely washing and cleaning of buses in the Depot garage, Topping up of HSD oil to vehicles and sweeping of garage and maintenance of toilets at the Depot. While the licences granted in favour of the petitioner in respect of the works are subsisting, the Corporation issued a paper publication dated 16.12.2009 calling for fresh tenders for the very same works for which the licences were awarded to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said action of the Corporation these three writ petitions are filed. It is the case of the petitioner that he was the successful bidder in the tenders floated in the year 2009 and he was allotted the works for a period of two years. Accordingly, agreements were entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation and the licences are subsisting. While so, notices were issued by the concerned Deputy Mechanical Engineer of the Corporation seeking to terminate the works awarded to the petitioner and proposing to call for fresh tenders on the ground of increase of minimum wages to the persons deployed by the contractors. Even prior to that notice, the respondent-corporation issued impugned notification inviting fresh tenders for the work already allotted to the petitioner. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Corporation in which the facts as pleaded by the petitioner have not been disputed. However, it is explained that consequent to revision of minimum wages payable to the persons deployed by the contractor w.e.f. 18.08.2009 which were made applicable to the existing contract works also it was felt necessary to go for fresh tenders duly notifying the revised wages payable together with Provident Fund, EDLIF, ESI etc. It is also stated that there is considerable differences between the revised and pre-revised rates and therefore, to ensure quality of work, termination of the existing work contract is proposed. It is to be noticed that during the pendency of these writ petitions, the petitioner expressed his willingness to pay the remuneration every month as per the revised rates issued by the Government with effect from 18.08.2009 as required in the notification issued on 16.12.2009. To that effect the petitioner has also submitted an undertaking before this Court, agreeing to pay the remuneration mentioned in the impugned tender notification dated 16.12.2009 for all the three works covered by the licences held by him. Having regard to the undertaking given by the petitioner in the form of an affidavit dated 08.02.2010, I deem it appropriate to dispose of these three writ petitions with a direction to the Corporation to continue the petitioner herein in respect of the three works entrusted to him in the year 2009 till the period of contract expires, subject to compliance with the undertaking given by him in the affidavit dated 08.02.2010. The three Writ Petitions are accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 22.02.2010 Ivd