Denotify= for grant of licence to run Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station. Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder pursuant to the earlier notification for grant of licence to run a Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station, no material is placed before this Court to show that the bid of the petitioner was accepted. Merely because the petitioner offered his bid, it will not confer any right on him for grant of licence. When the tender notification itself was cancelled and the bid of the petitioner was not accepted, he cannot claim any right for issuance of licence to run the Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station. For the aforesaid reasons, I do no find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of relief as prayed for. However, as it is stated that Rs.25,000/- was already deposited by the petitioner towards EMD and the same is still with the respondents, they are directed to refund the amount forthwith.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.3288 OF 2013

ORDER:

          In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is questioning the notification, dated 05.11.2012, to the extent of notifying for grant of licence to run Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station.

          It is the case of the petitioner that earlier when a notification was issued for allotment of Cycle/Scooter stand at the same place, he became the successful bidder and deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards EMD. On the ground that there is a civil dispute pending with regard to the said site, he was not allowed to operate the Cycle/Scooter stand and the respondents have again notified the same.

          When the matter came up on earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. On instructions, it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that though earlier a notification was issued for issuance of licence to run stalls at various places, including the Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station, the same was cancelled and the bid of the petitioner was not accepted. It is further submitted that in the absence of accepting the bid, the petitioner has no right to seek for allotment of the space, or to question the impugned notification. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was informed to take back the EMD amount, he has not turned up.

          Although it is the case of the petitioner that he was the highest bidder pursuant to the earlier notification for grant of licence to run a Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station, no material is placed before this Court to show that the bid of the petitioner was accepted.

Merely because the petitioner offered his bid, it will not confer any right on him for grant of licence. 

When the tender notification itself was cancelled and the bid of the petitioner was not accepted, he cannot claim any right for issuance of licence to run the Cycle/Scooter stand at Choutuppal Bus Station. 

For the aforesaid reasons, I do no find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of relief as prayed for. 

However, as it is stated that Rs.25,000/- was already deposited by the petitioner towards EMD and the same is still with the respondents, they are directed to refund the amount forthwith.

Subject to the above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. No costs.  

________________________

                                            R. SUBHASH REDDY, J

07^th February, 2013

MD

            

                                                            

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

                                        

WRIT PETITION No.3288 OF 2013

7^th February, 2013

MD