The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.31375 of 2014 Dated 18.10.2014 Between:
B.Kamalraju and 5 others And The APSRTC Rep. by its Managing Director and 3 others.
…Petitioner …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.Kuriti Bhaskar Rao Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings bearing different numbers, issued, on 09.09.2014, by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioners’ representations seeking extension of their license period for carrying on their respective business activities in the stalls allotted to them in V.Kota Bus Stand, Chittoor District, have been rejected.
In response to the tender notice issued by respondent No.2 in the year 2008, the petitioners have participated in the tender process and emerged as the successful bidders for carrying on their respective businesses such as sale of books, cool drinks, tea/coffee and snacks, General Store and Carpenter works etc., in the stalls allotted to them in V.Kota Bus Station. Licenses were issued to the petitioners for a period of six years from 06-08-2008. On the eve of expiry of the license period, the petitioners made representations to respondent No.2 seeking extension of license period mainly on the ground that during the currency of the license period, an intensive agitation for keeping the State of Andhra Pradesh United has taken place and that, as a result of the same, the petitioners’ businesses were affected. By similar but separate orders, respondent No.2 has rejected the petitioners’ requests for extension of the license period.
At the hearing, Mr.K.Bhaskar Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the orders passed by respondent No.2 show that he has not applied his mind to the main ground on which the petitioners sought for extension of license period. I am afraid I cannot accept this submission.
A perusal of the deeds of license would show that under Clause 1, the license period was fixed for six years. Sub- clauses (a) and (b) of Clause 27 of the said deeds read as under:
“(a) On the expiry of the period of the license or on its termination, as the case may be, the licensee shall deliver vacant possession of the premises, intact, to the licensor, forthwith.
(b) In the event of the licensee failing to deliver vacant possession to the licensor, the licensor shall have right to take possession of the premises by putting of his own lock and key to the said premises.”
It is not the pleaded case of the petitioners that the deeds of license executed in their favour contain any clause, which provides for extension of license period in view of occurrence of any disturbances in law and order or other unforeseen contingencies resulting in affecting their businesses. In the absence of any such clause, the petitioners are not entitled to seek extension of their license period. For the above- mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision of respondent No.2 in not extending the license period. The petitioners are, however, entitled to participate in the fresh tenders to be called by respondent No.2.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioners as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.39213 of 2014, filed by the petitioners for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 18th October, 2014
LUR