Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati considered four writ petitions filed by the same petitioner, V. Rabbani Basha, against various State authorities and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC). The petitions were W.P. Nos.31871 and 32835 of 2022, W.P. No.30041 of 2023, and W.P. No.1690 of 2024. The first three petitions were directed against the State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, the District Collector, the District Panchayat Officer, Kalasapadu Grampanchayat, the Tahsildar, and Smt Y. Siva Leela, Sarpanch. The fourth petition was filed against the Vice Chairman cum Managing Director of APSRTC, the Regional Manager, the District Public Transport Officer, and the Depot Manager, Proddutur. The petitioner was a contractor and businessman who had participated in a tender process floated by APSRTC Kadapa Region on 05.01.2022 for grant of licences to run different businesses at Yerraguntla Bus Station. He secured allotment letters dated 31.03.2022 for Open Stall Nos.5 to 10 for a period of five years, with monthly licence fee payable, and entered into an agreement on 16.06.2022. Subsequently, the District Public Transport Officer issued termination orders of his licences in respect of Open Space Nos.05 and 08 on 15.11.2023, and Open Space Nos.03, 04, 06, 07, and 10 on 08.12.2023. A fresh tender notification was issued on 04.01.2024. The petitioner challenged these actions in W.P. No.1690 of 2024, seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the termination orders and tender notification illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300 of the Constitution of India, and to quash them. The court observed that in W.P. Nos.31871, 32835 of 2022 and 30041 of 2023, no cause survived, and therefore those writ petitions had become infructuous. The judgment text provided does not contain the final decision on W.P. No.1690 of 2024, as the available excerpt ends abruptly after stating that the petitioner entered into an agreement. The court noted the relief sought and the factual background of the tender and licence termination but did not record a final holding on the fourth writ petition in the provided text. The judgment was reserved on 16.12.2025 and pronounced on 05.01.2026.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Infructuous Writ Petitions - When no cause survives, writ petitions become infructuous - Constitution of India - Court observed that in W.P. Nos.31871, 32835 of 2022 and 30041 of 2023 no cause survived and therefore these writ petitions had become infructuous. Held that these three writ petitions need not be adjudicated on merits (Para 2). B) Constitutional Law - Termination of Licence and Fresh Tender - Articles 14, 19, 21, 300 Constitution of India - Petitioner challenged termination orders of open space licences dated 15-11-2023 and 08-12-2023 and fresh tender notification dated 04-01-2024 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and against principles of natural justice. Court noted the relief sought in W.P. No.1690 of 2024; final decision on this writ petition not provided in the available excerpt (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether W.P. Nos.31871, 32835 of 2022 and 30041 of 2023 have become infructuous; whether termination orders and tender notification in W.P. No.1690 of 2024 are illegal, arbitrary, capricious, and violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19, 21, 300 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The Court declared W.P. Nos.31871, 32835 of 2022 and 30041 of 2023 as infructuous because no cause survived. The available text does not record the final decision on W.P. No.1690 of 2024.
Law Points
- Writ petition becomes infructuous when no cause survives
- termination of licence and tender notification can be challenged under Articles 14
- 19
- 21
- 300 of Constitution
- natural justice violation ground for judicial review
- tender process and licence agreement subject to writ jurisdiction
