( 1 ) HEARD both the sides.

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in both the writ petitions is one and the same, except minor details like dates and places of tender notification, they are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are the societies consisting of the members belonging to the scheduled tribes. Their grievance in both the writ petitions is that the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation), which is an instrumentality of the State is leasing the stalls/shops in the Bus Stations situated in agency areas, to non-tribals by inviting tender, which is contrary to Section 3 of Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulations, 1959 (for short the Regulations ) and also contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Samatha v. State of A. P. (1997) 8 SCC 191. The petitioners also relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in Pingili Pratap Reddy v. Dandu Pullam Raju (1989) 3 Andh LT 319, and stated that any transfer of immovable property contrary to Section 3 of the Regulations is null and void. Hence they sought for setting aside the tender notifications and consequently allotment made in favour of the non-tribals.

( 4 ) THE respondent-Corporation filed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that since the writ petitions arise out of a non-statutory contractual obligation they are not maintainable and the remedy lies with the appropriate Civil Courts.

( 5 ) IT is further stated that Section 3 (1) (a) of the Regulations prohibits only transfer of immovable property in agency tracts in favour of non-tribals, but they are not transferring any immovable property to non-tribals. It is stated that the Corporation is allotting stalls/shops etc. to the highest tenderers by collecting monthly licence fee and hence the said transaction does not amount to any transfer of any interest in land, but it amounts to only granting licence to run the stalls/shops, while the possession is enjoyed by them. It is stated that by granting licence they are only giving right to the highest tenderers to carry on business and as stated above, no interest is transferred in favour of them. It is further stated that since no interest in the property is created in favour of licensees and since only permission is granted to run shops, it amounts to only granting licence, but not lease. In support of this contention, the Corporation relied on the judgments reported in Revenue Board v. A. M. Ansari, AIR 1976 SC 1813, Brahm Raj v. Vidya Wati, AIR 1991 Punj and Har 188, A. P. S. R. T. C. v. N. Jayalakshmi, (1989) 2 Andh LT 247 and Prakash Sao v. Bihar S. R. T. Corpn. , AIR 1981 Patna 142.

( 6 ) THE respondent-Corporation further relied on a judgment reported in S. Sudhakar Gupta v. A. P. S. R. T. C. Hyderabad, 1998 (3) Andh LD 116 (DB), in order to contend that under Section 18 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, the Corporation is excepted to secure an efficient economical system of road transport services and for that purpose, it can acquire, hold and transfer the property.

( 7 ) THE Corporation also relied on a judgmentof the Apex Court reported in Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta, (1998) 3 SCC 45 in order to contend that the general expressions occurring after specified group of words shall not be given wider interpretation so as to include all transactions which are not specifically intended and that if such an interpretation is given, it will cause injustice to other legitimate persons.

( 8 ) FINALLY the stand of the Corporation is that since granting licence is not specifically barred under Section 3 of the Regulations and also since there is no transfer of any immovable property in favour of a non-tribal, they are entitled to issue tender notification and allot the stalls/shops to highest tenderers.

( 9 ) THE 3rd respondent in W. P. No. 3353/2002 who was awarded tender by the respondent-Corporation