WP/21738/2026 of Md. Rizwana Begum Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation on 8 September 2026

O R D E R:

Petitioner claims to have been allotted stall No. J-20 at Rathifile Bus Station for running Mirchi, Snacks and fast-food centre for five years on a monthly licensee fee of Rs.81,200/- enhanceable every year. The complaint of petitioner is that though the 2nd respondent issued allotment letter dated 13.02.2025, he did not make the stall ready for occupation till April 2026, hence, she did not commence her business. But, however, the 2nd respondent issued termination order dated

19.05.2026 and issued fresh tender notification dated 22.06.2026 calling for tenders in respect of the subject stall.

1.1. According to petitioner, though she paid security deposit of Rs.7,60,676/- as directed by the 2nd respondent, even before completion of civil works, the 2nd respondent insisted her to enter into an Agreement with effect from 27.10.2025 and pay licence fee from that date, for which she did not agree and requested the 2nd respondent to commence her contract from the date of execution of the Agreement, but unfortunately, the 2nd respondent did not consider the said request. It is alleged, the 2nd respondent not only terminated the contract of petitioner but also forfeited the security deposit without there being any justification and without issuing any show cause notice, but strangely, the Personal Officer, who is not the competent authority, had issued the show cause notice dated 26.02.2026 calling for explanation stating that the competent authority has ordered him to cancel the allotment of stall.

1.2. Petitioner states that she made representation dated 23.02.2026 to the 2nd respondent stating that she is ready to execute the Agreement on 23.02.2026, followed by the representations dated 06.04.2026, 17.04.2026 and 07.05.2026, but the 2nd respondent did not agree. In fact, previously, there was a generator room which was allotted to petitioner which required a lot of civil works for modification and make the room a suitable stall ready for doing business; it took lot of time for doing civil works; after taking possession of the stall on 27.10.2025, she had undertaken all the necessary civil works at her cost and made the stall ready for occupation in April 2026; therefore, the 2nd respondent is not at all justified in demanding her to execute the Agreement from 27.10.2025 even before the stall is made ready. Petitioner states that she made representation on 07.05.2026 to the 2nd respondent requesting to execute the Agreement in her favour from 20.04.2026 and in case, he is not prepared to do so, to refund the EMD and security deposit amount and the expenditure incurred by her, but the 2nd respondent did not respond to the same. Hence, the Writ Petition.

2. The Corporation filed counter stating that the impugned termination proceeding is an act of contractual determination effected under Clauses 3(d) and 11 of the Tender Notification and the forfeiture of security deposit is a express contractual consequence stipulated under Clause 11 to which petitioner had agreed while bidding. It is trite law that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended for adjudication of purely contractual disputes between a State instrumentality and a private party in the commercial field and that a party complaining of breach of contract, wrongful termination or wrongful forfeiture is liable to be relegated to the remedies available to it in private law; on this ground alone, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed 2.1.

According to the Corporation, the Writ Petition raises serious disputed questions of fact which are not amenable to writ jurisdiction and petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy which she has not availed. It is stated, the substantive grievance of petitioner is monetary in nature i.e. refund of security deposit of Rs.7,60,676/-, refund of amounts she claims to have expended upon the civil works and interest thereon; such a claim being one founded upon an alleged breach of contract, is triable by a competent civil court in a suit wherein the disputed facts can be gone into and tested on evidence.

2.2. It is further stated, petitioner cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate; vide her representation dated 07.05.2026, she declined to enter into an Agreement, demanded refund of her security deposit together with expenditure and interest and stated that she wish to withdraw from the tender. It was only upon such withdrawal, her allotment came to be terminated. Having repudiated the contract at her own instance, petitioner cannot now approach this Court and compel the Corporation to perform the very same contract.

2.3. According to the Corporation, the Tender Committee approved the bid of petitioner and issued Allotment Letter dated 13.03.2025 in respect of the subject stall for five years at an initial monthly licence fee of Rs.81,200/- subject to annual enhancement; she has to pay the balance security deposit of Rs.7,35,676/- after adjustment of EMD of Rs.25,000/-, pay stamp duty of Rs.22,450/- and execute the licence Agreement within the period stipulated under Clause 3(d) of the Tender Notification. The Depot Manager, Ranigunj informed petitioned by letters dated 20.06.2025, 21.07.2025, 04.09.2025 and 09.10.2025 that civil works at the stall stood completed; premises was in a ready-to-occupy condition and she should remit the security deposit and take possession of the stall. It is stated, petitioner remitted the balance security deposit only on 25.09.2025 i.e. more than six months after the allotment letter, whereas as per Clause 1 of the allotment letter, she ought to have deposited the same either within seven days from the receipt of allotment letter or 15 days from the date of allotment letter.

2.4. It is further stated, additional works desired by petitioner were permitted by letter dated 12.08.2025 at her own cost and under the supervision of the civil engineering authorities; petitioner took over the stall and its keys on 27.10.2025, thereafter, she neither executed the Agreement nor paid a single rupee; as such, show cause notice for cancellation of allotment was issued on 26.02.2026 which was received by petitioner on 02.03.2026 and she also submitted explanation on 11.03.2026. The Competent Authority considered the said explanation and communicated their decision thereon to petitioner on 26.03.2026 calling upon her to pay the outstanding licence fee and to enter into the Agreement; further opportunities were afforded to petitioner by telephonic message dated 16.04.2026 and by letter dated 02.05.2026 whereunder commencement of licence was fixed at 27.10.2025 being the very date on which she had taken possession. Subsequently, vide representation dated 07.05.2026, petitioner refused to enter into the Agreement and demanded refund of her security deposit and expenditure. It is only thereafter, Respondent No.2 who is the competent authority terminated the allotment of contract on 19.05.2026 in exercise of the rights reserved under Clauses 3(d) and 11 of the Tender Notification. The subject stall thus fallen vacant came to be included along with the other vacant stalls of Secunderabad Region in Tender Notification dated 02.06.2026.

3. Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

4. Having perused the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, as could be seen from the counter-affidavit, admittedly, petitioner took over possession of the stall and its keys on 27.10.2025. Even as per the explanation of petitioner to the show cause notice dated 11.03.2026, all the civil, plumbing, electrical and structural works were completed and the premises were completely ready by 14.11.2025; her representations dated 23.02.2026 and 01.06.2026 also sate the very same fact, however, petitioner has not executed the Agreement nor paid the stamp duty nor paid any licensee fee nor commenced the business for over six months thereinafter until the date of termination. This default, by itself, squarely attracts Clause 11 of the Tender notification. Further, the representation of petitioner dated 07.05.2026 makes it clear that she was unwilling to enter into the Agreement with effect from 27.10.2025 and called upon respondent Corporation to refund her security deposit together with the entire expenditure incurred by her towards repairs and civil modifications and that she wish to withdraw from the tender. The said representation falsifies the version of petitioner that she is always ready and willing to execute the agreement of contract.

5. Furthermore, this Court is in agreement with the contention of respondent Corporation that the claim of petitioner being the one for refund of the security deposit, expenditure and damages arising out of an alleged breach of contract, the same is triable by a competent civil Court, but petitioner has not availed the said remedy. Yet another thing to be remembered is, it is trite law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is supervisory in nature and is not to be exercised for adjudicating disputed questions of fact arising out of contract or for compelling a public body to contract with a person upon terms of that person’s own preference. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition, in the considered opinion of this Court, is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

7. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.

-------- -----------------------------

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 08th September 2026 ksld