APSRTC REP Vs. V MALLESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : All these Writ Appeals arise from a common order dated 20-2-1995 and 22-2-1995 in W.P.No.14612/ 94 by a learned single Judge of this Court. We are called upon to interpret Circular No.5/90-OPD(C) dated 12-1-1990 and to decide whether the respondents can claim renewal of the licences for a period of 12 years from the date of initial grant of licences in their favour. The respondents in all these appeals can be categorised into two groups: (1) Existing Licence holders whose licences are being renewed from tune to tune after completion of 12 years period at Central Bus Station (for short "C.B.S."). Gowliguda pending completion of construction of bus complex at Imliban and who have also been allotted open space at Imliban during the year 1990 to erect temporary sheds for the purpose of running canteen, pan shop and cycle stand as a stop gap arrangement consequent on shifting the operation of buses running on Kurnool sector to Imliban, and (2) Existing licence holders at C.B.S. Gowliguda, who have not completed the 12 year licence period.

(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the Writ Petitions are, that since the time of establishment of Road Transport Corporation in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the appellant-Corporation was operating District bus services from C.B.S. Gowliguda, Hyderabad and with a view to provide amenities to the travelling public at the bus stand, erected stalls and private persons are given licences on the basis of open tender system to vend snacks and refreshments, coffee, tea, cool drinks etc., All the respondents herein were granted licences on various dates to run their respective businesses initially for a period of three years as they happened to be the highest bidders in the tender system. As far as respondents in Writ Appeal Nos.236/95, 235/95 and 229/95 are concerned, they were given licences on 1-4-1980 to run the canteen, pan shop and cycle stand respectively. During the subsistence of their licences, the Corporation was taking policy decisions from time to time for extending the licence period, the first one being resolution No.47/81 dated 6-7-1981 passed by the Board of Directors to increase the licence period of the existing contractors by three more years. The said period was further extended by three more years in resolution No. 169/86 dated 12-1-1986. Again that period was extended to 12 years in resolution No. 189/89 dated 2-12-1989 on the basis of which Circular No. 5/90 dated 12-1-1990 was issued. In fact, the said Circular was issued in supersession of the earlier circulars with regard to grant of licences to the stalls/shops etc. While Clauses 4 and 5 deal with the initial grant of licences and powers of the Regional Tender Committee to grant/renew licences of the existing contractors, Clause 6 deals with increase in the annual licence fee payable by the existing contractors with which we are not very much concerned in these cases. Clause 7 of the circular extended the benefit to the existing contractors who got the licences in open tenders and an option was given to them to get their licences renewed for three more years to complete total 12 years as per the new procedure envisaged.

(3.) From this, it is evident that persons who are given licences to run the canteens/stalls/shops in the Bus Stations owned by the appellant-Corporation initially by way of tenders, are eligible to get their licences renewed upto a maximum period of 12 years on the basis of negotiations if their performance has not come to the adverse notice of the Corporation. After completion of 12 years period, the licences for the premises concerned shall invariably be given by way of open tenders. Naturally, the licences of the respondents herein are being renewed from time to time as per the policy of the Corporation and completed 12 year period by 1-4-1992. Even then their licences are being continued from time to time awaiting completion of construction of Imliban Bus Station Complex.