KOLLU VENKATESHWARLU Vs. GOVT OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order dated 1 -4-96 passed in favour of 4th Respondent by which his lease-hold/licence rights for collection of toll fee on the bridge in KM 8 8/0/ Suryapet-Aswaraopet in R & B Division. Khammam Division are extended until further auctions pending issue of orders on the request of R-4 for extension of lease-hold rights for the year 1996-97, contending that the impugned orders could not have been passed. When these matters had come up before me for admissiononl 1-4-961 admitted both these writ petitions and granted interim order of suspension suspending the impugned memo. However, I made it clear in the said order that it was open to the Government to collect the toll fee departmentally. Now, R-4 has filed a vacate petition contending that the interim order of this court granted on 11-4-96 may be vacated. Now the said vacate petitions are posted before me and both the counsel submitted that the writ petitions itself may be heard on merits. Hence, I heard the learned counsel on both sides.

(2.) The contention of the petitioner in W. P.No. 7699/96 is that the licence granted in favour of R-4 for collecting the toll fee for the year 1995-96 at the bridge in question has expired on31 -3-96. The pelitioner was expecting that the Government would issue tender notification, but the same was not done, since such tender notifications were already issued regarding other toll gates. In those circumstances he made representations to the officials requesting them to hold public auction before 1-4-96 for the bridge in question, butall that was in vain. In these circumstances, he made a detailed representation on 27-3-96 requesting the Engineer-in-Chief (R&B), Hyderabad i.e. R-2 in the writ petition, that the licence of R-4 was expiring on 31-3-96 and he was willing to pay the licence amount at 60% more than what R-4 as the existing licensee was paying. He submitted that 60% comes to Rs.6.20 lakhs per month. It is further stated by him that if the Engineer-in-chief felt that the said offer made at 60% was still at a lower side he was ready to pay even more than that during negotiations. He further stated that to show his bona fides he enclosed a Demand Draft for Rs. 6.20 lakhs drawn in favour of the Executive Engineer (R & B) vide Demand Draft No. 820040, dt.27-3-96 and also under took to comply with all the conditions. In the affidavit, he stated that R-4 filed a writ petition in W.P.No.6143/96 seeking direction from this Court for consideration of his representation for extension of his lease for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. At that point of time the present petitioner filed aimplead petitionon29-3-96 in the said writ petition. When the matter had come up on 29-3-96 R-4 withdrew his writ petition in view of the fact that the Court was aboutto dismiss the writ petition. Meanwhile, one Shaik Nissar Ahmad had filed another writ petition in W.P.No. 63 99/96 as a Public Interest litigation But, by that time the impugned order was passed by the Government. The petitioner filed an implead petition and also an application for suspension This court suspended the impugned memo vide order dt. 5-4-96 but thereafter the said petitioner namely Shaik Nissar Ahmad withdrew his writ petition. In those circumstances the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned memo of Government-R-1. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned memo is illegal and without jurisdictioa When the petitioner offered 60% more than the existing licence amount of R-4,R-l should not have extended his licence period and such action of R-1 is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. Almost with the similar contentions another writ petition is filed by one Sri. K. Venkateshwarlu contending that he is a social worker and a tax payer. According to him the object of collection of toll fee is to reimburse the cost of the construction of the bridge and if the right to collect the toll fee over the bridge is given at a low rate the collection of the tolls would be extended for a long time and as a result the citizens would be put to great loss in paying such toll fee all the time. He further submits that the extension of licence period in favour ofR-4 by the impugned memo is contrary to A.P.Roads and Bridges Toll Rules., according to which such licence rights shall necessarily be given by public auction from sealed tenders. Therefore, by the impugned memo the licence rights could not have been given to R-4 by negotiations without calling for tenders and therefore, the impugned memo is liable to be set-aside

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed by R-4 in support of the vacate petition, he stated that he was the existing licencee for the year 1995-96 and the said licence period came to an end by 31-3-96. But, for the year 1996-97 the department could not call for the auctions as the tariff survey was not completed to fix the Government bid amount. In these circumstances he submitted a representation on 14-2-96 and 24-2-96 to renew his licence or extend the same on the enhanced licence period. Since the Parliament elections were announced the department was not in aposition to conduct the auction and as such his request for extension of leasehold rights was considered in his favour as a stop-gap-arrangment. He submitted that the Government is competent to issue the impugned memo and as such there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned proceedings. He further submitted that the present writ petitioner never participated in the earlier auctions nor applied for the same as such he has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition and therefore this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.