WA/2022/2013 of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretar on 31 December 2013

Conclusion

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA AND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Writ Appeal No. 2022 of 2013

DATED:31.12.2013

Between:Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport CorporationRepresented by its Managing Director,Hyderabad.

… Appellant

And

Government of Andhra Pradesh,Represented by its Principal Secretary,Roads & Buildings Department,Hyderabad and others.

….Respondents

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTISENGUPTA ANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Writ Appeal No. 2022 of 2013

Judgment:(per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

This appeal is preferred against the judgment andorder of the learned Single Judge dated 5.8.2010, bywhich, the learned Single Judge has been pleased todismiss the writ petition.

The following reliefs were claimed in the writ petition.

“To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, especiallyin the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring that Sub-Clause (ix)of Clause 6.0 of the Terms and Conditions for collection of Tolls inthe Agreement No.1/1999-2000, dt. 2[nd] August, 1999 entered intobetween the Roads & Buildings Department, Government ofAndhra Pradesh and Sri K.Tata Reddy, Contractor (Bidder) and M/s. Soubhagya Projects (Pvt.) Limited,Ravulapalem, East Godavari District, A.P. is ultra vires, illegaland invalid and set aside the consequential Notification No.609/D3/97, dt. 22.12.2001 issued by the Executive Engineer(Roads & Buildings Division), Kakinada and the Memo No.1118/C3/2002, dt. 10.1.2002 of the Deputy TransportCommissioner, East Godavari District, Kakinada and pass suchother order.”

Looking at the prayer, it appears to us that there isan agreement between the Government and respondentNos. 4 and 5 and also a policy decision of theGovernment. The policy decision of the Governmentcannot be challenged. Moreover, an agreement can only be challenged by the parties, who are signatories to suchagreement and not by third parties. Besides this, thelearned Single Judge has also recorded a finding thus:

“That the Government issued orders in G.O. Ms. No.107, dated 20.6.1998 empowering certain guidelines forprivate investment in Road Projects in Andhra Pradesh. Bythe aforesaid G.O., the Government have decided toencourage private parties to take up development andmaintenance of certain road infrastructure projects on Build,Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis or Design, Build, Finance,Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis. The Government havetaken a decision to accept for private investment in the roadprojects in the State of Andhra Pradesh and as per serial No.26 of the annexure to the said G.O., the management of theRoad stretch built through private investment, the enterprisewill have powers to regulate and control the traffic on the roadstretch forming part of the agreement between theGovernment and the enterprise.

Admittedly, the petitioner has not chosen to questionthe said Government Order. Pursuant to the said G.O.,alone, the BOT scheme has been formulated entering intothe agreement by the Government in favour of respondentNos. 4 and 5.

In view of the aforesaid finding and our discussionrecorded above, we do not find any merit in thisappeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Consequently, the miscellaneous applications, if anypending, shall also stand dismissed. No costs.

_____________________

K.J. SENGUPTA,

CJ

_________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J