Telangana High Court
WP/42323/2015 of M.Maddilety Swamy, S/o. Thimmaiah Vs The Regional Manager on 30 December 2015
M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO W.P.Nos.42087, 42252, 42268, 42272, 42273, 42274, 42284, 42323, 42373, 42376, 42389, 42390, 42397, 42403 and 42424 of 2015 COMMON ORDER: In this batch of Writ Petitions, petitioners assail tender notice No.C2/437(131)/2015 dt.16-12-2015 of the Regional Manager, Kurnool
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Issues
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAOW.P.Nos.42087, 42252, 42268, 42272, 42273, 42274,42284, 42323, 42373, 42376, 42389, 42390, 42397,42403and 42424 of 2015
COMMON ORDER:
In this batch of Writ Petitions, petitioners assailtender notice No.C2/437(131)/2015 dt.16-12-2015 of theRegional Manager, Kurnool proposing to inviting tendersfrom persons who are interested in setting up stalls orshops within the Kurnool Region Bus Stations.
2. In this notification, open areas, in front ofcertain stalls, for which licences were already granted tothe petitioners, are offered to the intending tenderers forsetting up new stalls and shops.
3. Petitioners contend that they have paidconsiderable amounts towards obtaining licences for theshops in their occupation, that if now shops, pursuant tothe impugned tender, are allowed to be come up in front ofshops in occupation of the petitioners, the petitioners’shops would be covered totally and there would be noproper ingress and egress to enter into the petitioners’shops or to identify their shops. They further contend thatthe Kurnool Municipal Corporation and R & B officials hadinformed that in future there would be road widening up tothe shops in occupation of the petitioners and eventhough this fact is known to the respondents, they have issued the impugned tender notification inviting tenders forestablishment of shops in front of petitioners’ shops.
4. Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counselfor the petitioner in W.P.No.42087 of 2015 contended thatin fact, the area in front of shops of the petitioners doesnot belong to the respondents at all and it belongs to theMunicipal Corporation of Kurnool and the respondents arenot entitled to allow setting up of new shops in the area infront of petitioners’ shops.
5. Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for theother petitioners, contended that if access to the shops ofthe petitioners is cut off by the new shops which are nowproposed to be set up pursuant to the impugned tender,the petitioners would be ruined because they would notbe in a position to sustain themselves without anycustomers.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf ofrespondents asserting that the site in front of petitioners’shops belongs to 2[nd] respondent Corporation. Theycontend that the shops which are proposed, pursuant tothe impugned tender notification, would not in any wayobstruct the ingress and egress to the petitioners’ shopssince there is a gap between the petitioners’ shops andvacant sites indicated in the notification in front ofpetitioners’ shops.
7. No material is placed by the petitionersbefore this Court to establish that the site in front of thepetitioners’ shops does not belong to 2[nd] respondentCorporation and that it belongs to the MunicipalCorporation of Kurnool. Since the respondents haveasserted that the site in front of petitioners’ shops belongsto the respondents, the respondents cannot be restrainedfrom putting to use the said area to generate revenue andto provide additional facilities therein for the benefit of thepersons who travel in the buses of the respondents. It isnot the case of the petitioners that any of them have anyright, title or interest even in the premises which havebeen licenced to them and they admit that even thosesites are the property of the respondents.
8. In the light of the undertaking given by therespondents through the deponent Sri V.Srinivasu,Personal Officer, APSRTC, Kurnool Region, KurnoolDistrict that the proposed shops would not in any wayobstruct the ingress and egress to enter into thepetitioners’ shops, I am of the opinion that the interest ofthe petitioners is sufficiently safeguarded and they cannotprevent the respondents from putting to use the vacantsites belonging to the respondents in front of petitioners’shops.
9. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the WritPetitions.
Conclusion
10. All the Writ Petitions are accordinglydismissed recording the undertaking of the respondentsthat the shops proposed to be set up pursuant to theimpugned tender notification would not in any wayobstruct the ingress and egress to enter into thepetitioners’ shops. No costs.
11. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitionspending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 30-12-2015kvr