Mohd. Khaja Moinuddin vs APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyd. and others

The petitioner is the licensee of the premises to install and run the telephone booth at Zaheerabad bus station. The premises belongs to the management of the APSRTC. The management of the Corporation has taken steps to call for tenders to grant licence in respect of the above premises beyond 5-8-1999 after the expiry of the existing licence period. At that stage, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner-licencee praying for a declaration that the action of the second respondent in issuing tender notice dated 2-7-1999 is null and void and for a consequential direction to the respondents to grant extension of licence to the petitioner for a further period of two years from 5-8-1999.

The direction is sought to the respondents to extend the licence for a further period of two years on the basis of a clause incorporated in the agreement dated 5-8-1995 entered into between the parties. The clause given in the above agreement on which the learned Counsel placed reliance to contend that the petitioner has a right to seek renewal of the licence for a further period of two years reads:

"After 4 years of licence period the Licensor on behalf of APSRTC will review as to the satisfactory performance of the licensee in carrying out the business according to the provision of the agreement and instructions issued by the Corporation from time to time and accord permission for extension of Licence for a further period of 2 (two) years only."

A careful perusal of the above clause makes it abundantly clear that this clause does not vest a right in the petitioner-licensee to claim renewal of the licence for a further period of two years, as a matter of course or mere asking. On the other hand, under the above clause, the power is retained with the management of the APSRTC to renew licence for a further period of two years if it is satisfied that the petitioner-licencee is carrying out the business satisfactorily and according to the provisions of the agreement. It is too preliminary to state that no mandamus will lie to an authority, statutory or otherwise, unless the mover for the writ clearly establishes that he is having a subsisting enforceable right against the respondent authority and the respondent authority is equally under a public law obligation. The petitioner has utterly failed to establish that he has subsisting right to seek renewal or extension of licence for a further period of two years beyond 5-8-1999. In that view of the matter, issuance of writ of mandamus to the respondents to renew the licence of the petitioner for a further period of two years from 5-8-1999 does not arise. Added to this, it is time and again held and reiterated by the Courts that in the absence of binding legal liabilities and statutory provisions, whenever the Stale or instrumentalities of Slate proceed to part with their largesse, they should get the best return to the largesse so parted with and the best return can be ensured only by the method of open public auction. Looking from that angle also, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.