1. On 28.11.2011 I had heard this matter fully and reserved for judgment. Thereafter three other similar matters which came up on different dates were also heard, but the counsel in the latter cases requested time for an elaborate hearing. This writ petition was therefore not disposed of awaiting hearing in the other cases to be completed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has moved another writ petition raising similar issue questioning the order passed with respect to other transporters, which affects the same petitioner. In view of that, it was found desirable to dispose of writ petition.

2. Petitioner herein is a transport contractor, who deals with petroleum products, states in the affidavit that he has five vehicles at his disposal which are lorry tankers which carry petroleum products. Their numbers are AP 29 T 1685, AP 28 U 6318, AP 28 T 8949, AP 29 T 7974 and AP 10 T 7839. Petitioner has participated in the tenders called for by the respondents for transportation of MS/HSD, ex-Charlapalli and in response to the petitioner’s tender the rates acceptable to the respondents was communicated to the petitioner under the letter of the respondent dated 2