B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS batch of three writ petitions may be disposed of by a common order. The question that arises for consideration in all these writ petitions is as to whether the writ petitions filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, in the facts and circumstances of the case, are maintainable against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. Whether a writ would lie to resolve dispute arising out of a concluded contract between the petitioners and the respondent corporation.

( 2 ) IT would be enough if the facts in brief are noticed in W. P. No. 22472 of 1999 to appreciate the background under which the said question arises for consideration.

( 3 ) THE Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation issued a notification dated 4-12-1998 inviting sealed tenders from the interested persons to do their business in the specified stalls/areas/canteens in the bus station in Khammam District. The allotment of stalls/space/canteen as the case may be is by way of licence for the specified period. The petitioner submitted his sealed tender pursuant to the said notification in respect of shop No. 28 situated in bus station at Khammam. In the notification itself, the nature of the business is indicated as for doing any lawful business. The petitioner happen to be the highest bidder agreeing to offer a sum of Rs. 15,555. 00 per month as the licence fee. The licence was accordingly granted in favour of the petitioner for a period commencing from 1-3-1999 to 28-2-2002.

( 4 ) THE first respondent by proceedings dated 8-2-1999 informed the petitioner accepting the licence fee offered by the petitioner at Rs. 15,555. 00 per month for running pan/general/confectionary stall in shop No. 28 at Khammam bus station. The petitioner was accordingly directed to pay security deposit equivalent to six months licence fee and one month advance licence fee by 28-2-1999. The petitioner was also directed to enter into an agreement with Regional Manager, Khammam A. P. S. R. T. C. on or before 28-2-1999. Thereafter an agreement was entered into by the petitioner and the respondent corporation and a licence deed was executed on 15-2-1999.

( 5 ) THE second respondent herein by notice dated 23-2-1999 advised the petitioner to sell only the permitted items as per the terms and conditions and remove all unauthorised items from the shop immediately. It is the case of the respondent corporation that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner is entitled to sell only pan, general and confectionary items. But whereas the petitioner was doing all types of business and was selling cold drinks also. The petitioner was put once again on notice on 30-4-1999 by the first respondent herein requiring him not to sell unauthorised items in the stall in question. The petitioner sent his reply on 31-5-1999 stating that along with the pan shop, cold drinks were also sold as demanded by the general public. According to the petitioner, his brother D. Venkateshwarlu and his father B. Seetharamaiah constitute joint Hindu Family and there are no differences in between them and his father and brother are also licence holders of their respective shops and with mutual consent the licenced items were being sold as per their convenience. The first respondent herein through the proceedings dated 29-6-1999 required the petitioner to show cause as to why the licence granted to him should not be terminated for violating the terms of agreement and for selling unauthorised items in stall No. 28 in Khammam Bus Station. The petitioner was specifically put on notice stating that as per clause 2 of the agreement, the licence is for running a pan, general and confectionary items in shop No. 28 at Khammam bus station. But the petitioner was found selling cold drinks and fancy items unauthorisedly even after serving of two notices requiring the petitioner not to sell such items. The petitioner again submitted his reply on 1-9-1999 inter alia denyi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document