J. CHELAMESWAR, J.

( 1 ) THESE writ appeals arise from out of a common judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 15-4-1997 in Writ Petition Nos. 6008, 6016, 6029, 6159, 6261, 6373, 6388, 6425, 6436, 6604, 6611 and 4010 of 1997. The said writ petitioners questioned the notice issued to them by the A. P. S. R. T. C. , the respondent herein seeking to terminate their respective licences to run canteens, shops, stalls, cycle stands etc. , in various bus stations and bus complexes of the respondent-Corporation,

( 2 ) THE A. P. S. R. T. C. , is a statutory Corporation formed under Road Transport Corporation Act an enactment made by the Parliament. Under the scheme of the said enactment, A. P. S. R. T. C. is a body corporate with perpetual succession capable of holding and disposing of property.

( 3 ) IN order to provide transport facilities for the public, the A. P. S. R. T. C. , runs a fleet of large number of buses all over the State-The respondent herein constructed a large number of bus stations all over the State. To provide facilities ancillary to its main service of transporting passengers, the A. P. S. R. T. C. , has constructed in each one of the bus stations, space which is used for the purpose of housing canteens, shops, stalls etc. These facilities arc not provided by the respondent. Private entrepreneurs are invited to provide these facilities like running of the canteens and shops stalls etc. , which sell a wide range of articles like newspapers, eatables, soft drinks etc. , To enable the private entrepreneurs to carry on their business on the constructed premises owned by the respondent, the first respondent puts each of the private entrepreneur in some earmarked portion of its construction by a written agreement the terms of which varied from time to time and place to place, over the period of the last few decades.

( 4 ) THE first respondent from time to time issued circulars purporting to lay down the guidelines, procedure and other incidental matters pertaining to allowance of private entrepreneurs to carry on their business on the property belonging to the first respondent.

( 5 ) AMONG the writ petitioners before this Honourable Court whose licenses arc sought to be terminated, the earliest licenses are of April, 1988. So it would be better to examine the guidelines issued by the respondents from some time anterior to 1988. The respondent-Corporation produced the various circulars issued by them from time to time on this subject. The earliest of which, relevant for the purpose of this case, is Circular No. 45/81 dated 7-9-1981. Under the said circular clause (i) the contract is to be given for a maximum period of three years subject to various other conditions mentioned in the circular. Clause (viii) of the General Conditions provides that the Corporation reserves its right to terminate the contract by giving due notice. The said circular was amended from time to time and in the year 1985 by virtue of Circular No. 51/85 dated 30-11-1985, the respondents-Corporation replaced the earlier mentioned circular providing for a more comprehensive scheme.

( 6 ) UNDER Circular No. 51/85, tenders were required to be called for after giving publicity in the local newspapers. A tender committee constituted, should scrutinise all the tenders. Clause 5 of the said Circular provided that the contract shall be for a period of 3 years at the first instance and shall be extended for another period of 3 years, subject to certain enhancements of rent. However, the total period of contract shall be six years. The General Conditions attached to the contract as given in Annexure a to the said circular contemplate that the licence issued is terminable by giving one month s notice without assigning any reason.

( 7 ) ONCE again, the respondents-Corporation issued Circular No. 38/96 dated 30-8-1986 modifying certain clauses of the earlier circular i. e. , Circular No. 51/85. Clause 2 (ii) provided that after the expiry of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document