The Andhra Pradesh High Court delivered a verdict on petitions challenging the actions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation involving the termination of licences for commercial spaces at a bus station and the issuance of a fresh tender for those same spaces. The High Court emphasised that the practice of allocating multiple commercial spaces to a single individual by a State instrumental body amounted to a “pernicious practice” that encouraged monopolistic control and undermined public interest. The Court underscored that State largesse should not be cornered by one person but should be distributed fairly and equitably among different individuals, so as to best serve common good and avoid the creation of vested interests through monopoly.
The matter before the Court stemmed from multiple writ petitions filed by an individual whose licences to operate business units at various open spaces in Yerraguntla Bus Station had been terminated due to allegations of non-payment of licence fees and subletting the spaces to third parties, in violation of the licence conditions. The licences had been granted earlier by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, and the petitioner contested both the terminations and the subsequent tender notification issued for the same open spaces. The High Court found that the petitioner had clearly violated the terms of the licences, including by subletting the open spaces to third parties without authorisation and failing to pay the requisite licence fees. Evidence before the Court showed that sub-tenants were paying rent to the petitioner, which supported the Corporation’s contention that the petitioner had breached the licence conditions. In response, the petitioner did not effectively deny the allegations, instead asserting that the third parties were occupying the spaces unlawfully, a defence the Court described as undermining his credibility and indicative of approaching the Court with “unclean hands.”
In its analysis of the wider issue, the High Court observed that the practice adopted by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation of granting several licences in favour of a single individual was objectionable. The Court reasoned that allowing one person to hold multiple licences enabled him to sublet the allotted spaces and create an ecosystem that facilitated abuse of the tender and licence conditions. The Court emphasised that when open spaces owned by the State were allocated to a single person in multiple numbers, it not only created a vested interest but also resulted in monopolistic control over State resources, contrary to the purposes for which such allotments were made. State largesse, the Court noted, is intended to be utilised in a manner that achieves equitable distribution of public resources and serves the collective interest of the community as envisaged under the Directive Principles of State Policy. The Court cited constitutional principles that require the State to strive to minimise inequalities and prevent monopolies or vested interests arising from State benefits and allocations.
While dismissing the writ petitions to the extent that they challenged the termination of the petitioner’s licences, the High Court took strong exception to the terms of the fresh tender notification issued by the Corporation. The tender issued in January 2024 did not include any prohibition on a single person bidding for more than one open space. By failing to include such a restriction, the Court held, the Corporation was perpetuating the unhealthy practice it had criticised, leaving open the possibility of further monopolistic control over multiple commercial spaces by a single individual. The Court determined that this omission rendered the tender notification objectionable in law and against public interest.
Consequently, the High Court quashed the tender notification and directed the Corporation to refund all deposits submitted by bidders, including those of the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court also issued directions for the Corporation to prepare a fresh tender document that explicitly prohibits any single person from bidding for more than one licence for any open space. This direction was intended to ensure that the allocation of open spaces at public facilities such as the bus station would be undertaken in a fair and equitable manner, preventing monopolistic practices and facilitating broader participation by diverse individuals.
In arriving at its decision, the Court highlighted that the distribution of commercial opportunities by State bodies should align with broader objectives of equity and public welfare, rather than enabling concentration of multiple state benefits in the hands of a single entity. The judgment reflects the Court’s concern that without explicit safeguards, public resources can be utilised in ways that distort competitive opportunities and enable undue advantage to particular parties, ultimately undermining principles of fairness and inclusive access. The High Court’s orders thereby not only addressed the specific procedural issue of the tender notification but also underscored the need for institutional checks to prevent monopolistic accumulation of State allocations in contravention of legal and constitutional norms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.