WP/15648/2025 of Sri.A.Rajender Vs The State of Telangana on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed aggriqved by the proceedings dated 02.06.2025 issued by Respondent No.6. whereby representation dated 17.O5.2025 of Petitioners was rejected and consequential steps were initiated in furtherance of e-Tender Notification dated LL.O4.2O25 in respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16, 17 and 18 situated at Jagtial Bus Station. Petitioners seek a declaration that the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2025 are arbitrary, illegal, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the orders passed by this Court in the earlier rounds of litigation, and consequently seek setting aside of the said proceedings and protection of their license rights in respect of the subject DOT Shops.

Petitioners are licensees of Dor shop/Stall Nos. 16, 17 arul 18 situated at Jagitial Bus Station, Jagitial District and they are carrying on business in the said stalls. Respondent corporation, with a view to utilise vacant land available in Jagtial Bus Station, invited bids from intending business persons under the Deposit operate and Transfer (Dor) scheme for corLstruction and operation of shops/stalls within the bus station premises. Pursuant to the said notification, they submitted bids for subject shops offering to pay a monthly license fee of Rs.5,o00/- per stall and a non-refundable deposit of Rs.2,4o,oool- for construction and arlotment of the said stalls. 'fhe corporation communicated acceptance uide letters dated o8.o1.2o15, on receipt of which, petitioners deposited non-refundable amount of Rs.2,4o,o00/- and were thereafter, granted license in respect of the Dor shops for twentJr years commerrcing from 09.o2.2o15 and ending on og.o2.2o3s, with a clear and unequivocal stipulation that upon completion of the license lreriod, they should vacate and hand over possession of the stalls to the corporation and that no extension of the license period would be granted beyond the said term. ./^ e,-"4

2.1. Petitioners contend that after several years of peaceful operation of the stalls, Respondents issued notice dated L5.O9.2021 alleging that Petitioners had encroached upon additional area measuring 232.75 square feet, 231.16 square feet and 231.76 square feet respectively in front of their allotted stalls. It is the specific and consistent case of Petitioners that the inspection report dated 31.08.2021, on the basis of which such allegations were made, was never furnished to them, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to verify or contest the measurements. Petitioners state that subsequent notices dated O5.O7.2022, 25.11.2022, 06.0 1 .2023 and 05.O6.2023 reiterated the very same allegations without supplying any supporting material or report.

2.2. Petitioners further state that they participated in a meeting convened by the Regional Tender Committee on 22-06.2022 in connection with the alleged encroachment, during which, ft"y, without admitting the allegations, expressed their willingness to pay additional license fee of Rs.2,OOO/-for the alleged encroached area in order to resolve the issue amicably. However, the said offer was not accepted by the Regional Tender Committee. Thereafter, by notices dated 25.11.2022 and 06.01.2023, Respondents demanded monthly amounts of Rs.2s,32rf-, Rs.2s,2r6/- and Rs.20,7g3/- respe<:tively with effect from o2-o9.2o21 towards license fee and charg:s for alleged utilisation of additional space, coupled with a thrr:at of termination of license and forfeiture of security deposit in the event of non-payment.

2.3. It is the specific contention of petitioners that Regional Tender committee had no authority or jurisdiction to unilaterally alter or enhance the license terms or determine additio;ral financial liability. According to petitioners, clause 32 of the L.icense Agreement categorically provides that any dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of the license shall be decided by the Managing Director of the corporation and that the decision of the Managing Director alone would. be final and binding. They further contend that similar allegations of encroachment were levelled against all2l Dor shops in Jagitial Bus stertion, thereby demonstrating arbitrariness and non_ application of mind on the part of the Respondents.

2.4. Aggrieved by the notice dated 2L.or.2023, Petitione;:s filed writ petition No. 20696 o,f 2023, wherein this court, blr order dated os.og.2o23, declined to set aside the shor,r, carrse notice but directed petitioners to submit their detailed t:xplanation within two weeks and directed Regional

-t Manager to consider explanation and pass appropriate orders after affording reasonabre opportunity of hearing, while restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps till completion of the said exercise. petitioners candidly admit that due to oversight, they failed to submit their explanation within the time stipulated by this court. consequentry, Respondent corporation issued a final order terminating the license of Petitioners uide proceedings dated Lg.og.2o23. Immediately thereafter, petitioners submitted representation dated 2l'o9'2023 requesting reconsideration and seeking an opportunity to explain their case. Notwithstanding the pending representation, Respondents closed the Dor shops with effect from 23-og.2o2a, thereby depriving petitioners of their livelihood. 2-5. petitioners thereafter filed writ petition No. 22244 of 2023 which was disposed of on 18. Lo.2o23 with a direction to Respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 2l'o9'2023 in accordance with law. pursuant thereto, proceedings dated 29.Lr.2o23 were issued which, according to Petitioners, did not properly consider their explanation and did not assign cogent reasons for rejecting their contentions. Petitioners again approached this court in writ petition No. i j

I i I I

33097 0f 2023 wherein an Advocate commissioner was appoir ted for local inspection of the subject DoT stalls who submitted report stating that actual encroachment, if any, was only to an extent of 5.g5 square feet each in respect of stalr Nos. 16 and 18 and 63-7 square feet in respect of stall No.17, which was substantiaily and drastica[y rower than the extent of encroac'1ment alreged in the earlier notices issued by the Respondents.

2.6. While the said Writ petition was pending adjudicarion, Respondents issued e-Tender Notification dated 08'O7 '20t)4 for re-a,otment of the subject sta,s. charenging the same, petitioners liled writ petition No. 19737 0f .2024.Both the writ l)etitions were disposed of by a common order dated 21'LO'202'+, whereby this court directed petitioners to pay charges for the encroached portion as per the rules in force and further directed Respondents to consider the petitioners, representation for leasing of the shops thereafter. Despite submitting representations dated 01.11 .2024 and, 10.02.2025 seeking cornpliance with the directions of this court, the corporation issued proceedings dated o3.o3.2025 demanding amounts carculated up to 31 -or.2a25, which incruded charges even for the period during which the shops were admittedry- ft

('-l closed by the Respondents from 23.09.2023 onwards. Petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated O7.O3.2O25 specifically stating that they were not liable to pay any charges for the closed period and expressed their readiness to pay charges for the encroached portion only up to the date of termination.

2.7. While the said representation was pending consideration, Respondent Corporation issued a fresh e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 followed by a consequential letter dated L4.O5.2O25 seeking implementation of the tender. Petitioners submitted another representation dated 17.O5.2O25 agreeing to pay the encroached portion charges excluding the closed period and requesting de-notification of the tender insofar as their stalls were concerned. Aggrieved thereby, they filed Writ Petition No. 15200 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated 21.05.2025, directed that any tender process in respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16, LT and 18 pursuant to the e- Tender Notification dated L1.O4.2O25 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Despite the subsistence of the said judicial order, Respondent No.6 issued the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2025 rejecting Petitioners' representation dated L7.O5-2O25 without affording arry

opporrunity of hearing and without even adverting to the order passe<l by this court, which has necessitated the filing of the present writ petition. 3' Respondent corporation, through their counter affidavjt, vehemently opposed the Writ petition and contends that th: same is misconceived, devoid of merit and constitutes an abuse of the process of raw. It is asserted that petitioners, having repeatedry violated the terms and concritions of the License Agreement, are not entitred to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Articre 226 of the constitution and writ petition is liabre to be dismissed at the threshold.

3.1. Respondents state that subject stails were allotted to Petitioners under a License Agreement dated og.o2.2o15 for 20 years ending on og.02.2o3s, subject to strict compliance with the terms and conditions contained therein, particularly clause 2 of the License Agreement, which mandates that licensee shall confine business operations strictly within the allotted area and sha, not encroach upon or ut,ise any additional government land. In 2oLT, petitioners themselves approacherl the corporation seeking permission to change the nature of t'usiness carried on in the respective stalls. After due considerati'rn and negotiations, the competent authorit5r a-\ i'I I:,.- ,

:::, 1-r: - .:.,l:r:;.:R:*i::

- :.--.:i::.-i-:.:. ' - ^t ii iI I I I i ! I :

i'1 permitted the change of business. Pursuaqt thereto, license fee was revised and enhanced. In respect of Stalls 16 and 17, license fee was enhanced with effect from l5-O2.2O17, and in respect of DOT Stalt No.18, fee was enhanced with effect from OL.O6.2OL7. Petitioners accepted the revised license fee and paid the same without any demur or protest, thereby acquiescing to the revised contractual terms. It is asserted that Petitioners' claim that license fee remained unchanged at Rs.S,OOO/- per month is factually incorrect and misLeading.

3.2. Respondents assert that during inspections conducted in 2O2L, it was noticed that Petitioners had unauthorisedly encroached upon additional area beyond the allotted stall premises, which formed part of government land within the bus station. Such encroachment was in clear violation of Clause 2 and other material conditions of the License Agreement. Accordingly, notices were issued to Petitioners starting from O2.O9.2O21, followed by notices dated L5.O9.2021 and O5.O7.2022, calling upon them either to vacate the encroached area or to pay additional license fee for unauthorised utilisation of the said space. Despite repeated notices and opportunities, Petitioners neither vacated the encroached portion nor complied with the demands raised by the C,rrporation. It is contended that Petitioners continued to enjoy unauthorised occupation of public property while deriving comm,lrcial benefit therefrom, thereby causing hnancial loss to the Corporation.

3.3. Respondents further submit that Petitioners challerrged the show cause notice dated 2L.O7.2O23 in Writ Petitiorr No. 20696 of 2023, wherein this Court, by order dated, O3.O8.r1023, declined to interfere with the show cause notice and inr;tead granted Petitioners an opportunity to submit their explanzrtion within two weeks. The Court further directed the Regionzil Manager to consider the explanation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Respondents contend that Petitioners wilfully failed to comply with the said drder and did not submit any explanation within the stipulated time, compelling the Corporation to issue a final order terminar-ing the license on 19.O9.2023.

3.4. It is further contended that even after termination of the license, Petitioners continued to pursue litigation and prevented the Corporation from taking possession of the stalls or proceoding with fresh allotment. Petitioners filed writ Petition No. 272+4 of 2023, pursuant to which proceedings dated

23. L1.2O23 were issued after considering their representation. t\

o l1 Thereafter, they once again filed Writ Petition No. 33O97 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.19737 of 2024, thereby prolonging the dispute. During the proceedings in writ Petition No. 33097 of 2023, an Advocate commissioner was appointed who, on physical inspection, confirmed encroachment to an extent of 5.95 square feet in respect of DoT stalt Nos.16 and 18 and 63.07 square feet in respect of DoT Stall No. L7, aggtegating to a total encroachment of 74.92 square feet. Petitioners never challenged the Advocate Commissioner's report and have thus accepted the findings relating to encroachment'

3.5. It is contended that by common order dated 2L.1O.2024 in writ Petitions No. 33097 0f 2023 and' 19737 0f 2024, this Court granted one final opportunity to Petitioners to clear the dues relating to the encroached area within one week and directed the Corporation to consider their representation thereafter. According to Respondents, they failed to comply with the said directions and instead disputed liability beyond

23. Og.2O23. Respondents justify the calculation of .dues up to January 2025 by contending that although the license was terminated on lg.Og.2o23, Petitioners continued to assert possessory rights over the subject stalls by filing successive Writ Petitions, thereby preventing the Corporation from taking t2 physical possession or issuing fresh tenders. Due to pendency of Writ Petitions No. 27244 and 33097 of 2023 and, L9737 of 2024, the Corporation was effectively restrained from exercising its rigtrts as lessor, and consequently, the Petitioners remained in de facto possession. In such circumstances, Respondents contenl that they were justified in computing differential license fee for -he period from O2.O9.2O2\ to 31.O1.2O25.

3.6. Respondents further submit that calculation of additional license fee for encroached area was made in a transparent, rational and standardised manner. The formula adoptec involved deriving the per square foot rate by dividing the applicable monthly license fee by the allotted area and applyinli the same proportionately to the encroached area as confirmt:d by physical inspection and the Advocate Commissioner's report. It is contended that the method adopted ensures proportionality and uniformity and cannot be termed arbitrarl'. It is further asserted that as there was no subsisting license agreement after termination and the petitioners failed to comply rvith the directions issued by this court, corporation was constrained to issue e-Tender Notification dated Ll.o4.2o2s for re-all,ttment of the subject stalls. Petitioners challenged the said tencler by fiting Writ Petition No.152OO of 2025, wherein \ {

i(7 l3 this Court directed that tender outcome would be subject to the result of the writ petition.

3.7. Respondents contend that in view of Petitioners' continued non-compliance, absence of any subsisting license, and persistent default in clearing dues, the Corporation lawfully issued proceedings dated 02.06.2025 rejecting Petitioners' representation dated 17.05.2025. It is asserted that the said proceedings were passed in accordance with law, do not suffer from arbitrariness, and do not violate any statutory or constitutional right of the Petitioners. Respondents finatly stated that once a transparent tender process has been initiated and no enforceable or subsisting right exists in favour of the Petitioners, they cannot seek cancellation or de-notification of the tender. Such a course, according to Respondents, would be contrary to public interest and the principles governing fair allotment of public property.

4. Heard Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri N. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

5. Having considered the pleadings and rival contentions, this Court finds that the relationship between the parties is governed by a License Agreement dated Og.O2.2Ol5, which clearly stipulates that license is subject to strict compliance with the terms and conditions therein. petitioners themsr:lves admit issuance of multiple notices alleging €ncro?,rhment and do not dispute the fact that they failed to submit an explanation within the time granted by this court in writ P,:tition No.2o696 of 2023. Therefore, the termination dated '..g.og.2o23 which was issued for non-compliance with the dire'ction given by this court cannot be termed arbitrary or violativr: of natural justice.

6. The Advocate Commissioner's report was not questiorred by petitioners which establishes that they encroached some extent. This Court in its common order dated 2L.Lo.2(t24 in writ Petitions No. 33097 of 2023 and r9T3T of 2024 dirl not restore the license unconditionally but granted a conditional opportunity to Petitioners to pay charges for the encroached portion as per the rules in force and directed the corporation to consider leasing of the shops thereafter. The conditional nature of the relief is evident from the language of the order. compliance with the condition was a sine qua non for any further consideration. Petitioners, however, instead of complyinll with the same, raised disputes regarding computat:on of dues and liability for the period after .rl (")

23.09.2023. Such conduct clearly demonstrates non- compliance with the spirit and letter of the directions issued by this Court. During the pendency of Writ Petition Nos.27244 of 2023, 33097 of 2023 and 19737 ol 2024, the Corporation was effectively restrained from exercising its rights over the subject stalls. In such circumstances, computation of differential license fee for the period during which Petitioners continued to assert control cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal.

7. It is also to be seen, as on the date of issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2025, there was no subsisting license in favour of Petitioners. The termination dated 19.09.2023 continued to operate. [n the absence of any enforceable right, they could not have sought de-notification of e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 or continuation of occupation of public property. Rejection of their representation, therefore, cannot be faulted.

8. Yet another contention that impugned proceedings violate principles of natural justice is devoid of merit inasmuch as Petitioners were afforded repeated opportunities over several years including a specific opportunity granted by this Court, which they faited to utilise. The explanation offered by Respond.ents for computing charges up to January 2025 is on

\i; accourlt of the fact that petitioners did not surrender the possession and they continued in the premises in view of the successive litigation and the said explanation is reasonable and cannot be termed arbitrary. Hence, initiation of a transparent tender process for re-allotment of public property in the absence Ofrry subsisting license cannot be interdicted at the instance of Petitioners.

9. Furthermore, it is a settled legal position that a writ of mand.a,ztus cannot be issued to enforce purely contractual rights e.riSing out of a non-statutory license, particularly when dispute,l questions of fact and computation of dues are involvec.. It is eqqally well settled that public propert5r must be dealt with in a fair, transparent and revenue-oriented manner, and that no individual can claim a vested right to continue in occupat on of such property contrary to contractual terms and public interest. Once the license stood terminated and no subsisting right existed, the Corporation was fully justified in initiating; a transparent tender process through e-Tender Notification dated | 1.O4.2O25.

10. In the totality of circumstances, this Court linds that PeLtioners have not approached the Court with clean hands, have repeatedly failed to comply with contractual t7 / t: li ll ilii obligations and judicial directions, and are attempting to perpetuate their occupation of public properW by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court. No arbitrariness, illegality, mala ftdes or violation of statutory or constitutional provisions is made out to warrant interference. For all the aforesaid reasons, this court holds that writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 1.1'.' ,., ' i' " Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No tlq costs. t To t2. Consequentl5r, the miscellaneous Applications, if any'shall stand closed. SD/. C. DEEPI ANT REG //TRUE COPY// OFFICER CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT' High Court for of Telangana at I i I l

1. Two

2. Hyderabad One CC to . tourl tvttSS VLADI MEER KHATOON, Advocate IOPUCI vocate (OPUC)

3. One CC to SRI N.CHAN DRA SI{EKAR, Ad

4. Two CD CoPies SA GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:l)9/0112026

ORDER

WP.No.15648 ot 2025 DISMISSINTG THE W.P t & ?.1 JAil 2$26 t STA (-(J * WITHOUT COSTS. TI, a