ORDER
1. An advertisement was issued in newspapers inviting applications from the private bus owners to supply buses to the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation on hire basis. The petitioner applied. Respondents 3 and 4 were also contenders. The respondents 1 and 2 accepted the buses of respondents 3 and 4. The petitioner’s offer has not been accepted. In this background this writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in accepting the offer of respondents 3 and 4 while rejecting the offer of the petitioner.
2. The selection of buses is made on the basis of guidelines framed by the respondent No.1. There could be two types of applicants in terms of the guidelines, one those with ready buses and the other those without buses. The second group is further classified into two categories, first being those persons who are in possession of chasis with proof of invoice and the second category would be of those who are not in possession of chasis. Those who have ready buses would get preference over others. If applicants with ready buses are not available, then the second preference would be in favour of those who are in possession of a Chasis with proof of invoice. If no person is available even under this category, then the person who are not in possession of chasis even can be considered. The petitioner falls under this category. Admittedly he had no ready bus. He was not in possession of chasis with proof of invoice. The respondents 1 and 2 considered the respondents 3 and 4 in the first category, that means the respondents were of the view that the respondents 3 and 4 were applicants with ready buses which is controverted by the petitioner.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is further laid down under guideline (d) that the entrepreneur with a ready bus shall be
insisted to produce the RC book of the bus or sale agreement to that effect along with copy of RC book. The Counsel’s contention is that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 were not fulfilling this condition as on the date of selection they were not in possession of R.C. book of the bus. The respondents case is that the meeting was held on 28th February, 2000 the respondents 3 and 4 produced agreement of purchase of two buses of 1999 model at a cost of Rs.9.00 lakhs, these buses had been purchased in Tamilnadu, Since the time to get it transferred under Motor Vehicles Act was short they obtained sales letters and copies of RC books from the respective registered owners and produced the same before the selection committee on 28th February, 2000. On the next day the RTA concerned gave no objection certificate under M.V. Act in favour of 3rd respondent and the ownership was transferred by RTA Cuddapah in his name on 3-3-2000. In the case of 4th respondent, no objection certificate was issued on 3-3-2000 and the ownership was transferred in his name by RTA Cuddapah on 7-3-2000. Agreements with the 3rd respondent and 4th respondent was entered into by the Corporation on 6th March and 10th March, 2000 respectively. So, admittedly the respondents 3 and 4 were not the owners of the vehicles as on 28th February, 2000 in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act. They became owners on 3-3-2000 and 7-3-2000 respectively in terms of the M.V. Act. On the relevant date i.e., 28th February, 2000 they were in possession of copy of the RC book and a sale letter. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, in terms of the guidelines the respondents 3 and 4 could not have been in the category of ready buses. This contention cannot be accepted. On plain reading of guidelines (d) which lays down that, entrepreneurs claiming ready buses should produce the RC book of the bus or sale agreement with a copy of the RC book. The respondents 3 and 4 have
produced sale letter and also the copy of the RC book and immediately thereafter they have also produced RC book in their name after the vehicle was transferred in their name. So, it was not the intention of respondents 3 and 4 to oust the petitioner from competition by claiming that they were the entrepreneurs with ready buses. In fact, the purpose of this guideline is to ensure that the agreements are drawn with the persons who can provide the buses. Since respondents 3 and 4 had already purchased the buses by 28th February, 2000 they could not be ousted from competition on the ground that they did not become owners in terms of M.V. Act on the relevant date. They were within the zone of consideration amongst those who had ready buses. Therefore, this argument fails.
4. The second contention raised is that the respondents 3 and 4 had filed applications each for two different routes on the strength of only two buses. It is contended by the petitioner that, for each route a separate application has to be filed and there should be a separate bus for claiming each route. In this context the relies on the application form which at the top states, “Note” ; Each application is valid for one bus”. He submits that for one bus only one route can be claimed. This is a far fetched interpretation to the note on the application form. This note merely means that for every route a separate application has to be made. If a person wants to compete for different routes he has to file different applications. Therefore, in my view it is not correct to say that owner of one bus can only compete for one route. He can compete for as many routes as he likes provided he submits separate applications for each route.
5. Further, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondents 3 and 4 had applied for two different routes and they were allotted
a route which they did not accept and thereafter they were considered for the route for which the petitioner had also applied. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that, after the respondents 3 and 4 were allotted a route and they were holding only one bus each, they could not be considered for any other route. When the route was taken for which the petitioner had applied, the case of the respondents 3 and 4 had already been considered and another route had already been allotted to them. However, the learned Counsel for the respondents submits that, when that route was given to them they showed their inability to take that route therefore suffered a loss of losing their security deposit. Since, after their application was accepted and the respondents 3 and 4 had shown their inability to take that route their another application which was pending for the route in question was taken up. I do not find that there was any bar for respondents 1 and 2 not to consider the case of respondents 3 and 4 for the route in question. Besides what has been stated above, the respondents 1 and 2 have entered into agreement with respondents 3 and 4 as early as in March, 2000 and they have been plying the buses.
6. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
