WP/28502/2025 of B.Prabhakar Rao, Vs Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited (TRSCL) on 9 January 2026

1. B.Prabhakar Rao,, S/o. Late Sri Mallaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o. House No.1'1-10-753, Raparty Nagar, Khammam.

2. P.Kaladhar Rao, S/o, Lingampally Lingarao, Aged 55 Years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-96/1 , Shayampeta, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District.

3. R.Arun,, S/o. Tirupathi Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ. Employee, R/o. H.No.6-28, PO Korlapalli, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District.

4. A.Rajeswara Rao, S/o. Errabelli Lakshmana Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-9'1 , Gundrapalli, Jammikunta, Adilabad.

5. L.Manjula, W/o. Lingampally Lingarao, Aged 48 years, Occ.Employee, H.No.1 -96/'l , Shayampeta, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District.

6. A. Anji Reddy, S/o. Yanadi Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ. Employee, Plot No.10'l , lndu Residency, DD Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad.

7. Prem Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Ramchandra Prasad Tiwari, Aged 62 Years, Occ.Employee, Shalibanda, Charminar, Hyderabad.

8. Shaik Farzana,, D/o. Babumiya, Aged 29 years, Occ.Employee, 4-26, Vyra Road, Khammam District.

9. V.Thriveni, D/o. Rama Rao, Aged 28 years, Occ.Employee, H.No. 2-46, Raparthinagar, Khammam.

10. T.Spandana, D/o. Ravi Kumar, Aged 28 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No.B- 5-13711 , Nizampet, Near Jammi Banda, Khammam. '1 'l .G.Satyavathi, D/o. G. Krishna, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-4-22, Kallur, Khammam District. 1 2. A. An.laneyulu, S/o. A. Narayana, Aged 35 years, Occ. Employee, Fl/o. H.No.4-4311, Gollonipalli, Vedanda, Mahabqob4agqr.

13. Md.Giyas Ali, S/o. Md.Sheb Ali, Aged 58 years, Occ. Employee, R/o H.No.B- 58, Bujjabagh, Andole, Medak District.

14. K. Ravi Teja,, S/o. K. Tirupathi, Aged 29 years, Occ. Employee, H.No.'1-29- 92, Jammigadda, Kapra, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

15. K. Tirupathi,, S/o. K. Narsaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-29- 92, Jammigadda, Kapra, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

16. A. Sobha Rani,, Wo. A. Tirupathi Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ. Employee, H. . No. 14-1 , Thokalapalli, Chelkur, Karimnagar District.

'1 7.G. Veerababu,, Sio. Venkat Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ. t mployee, H.No.7_31, Burgampad Village, Bhadadri Kothaguem. -

18. S Santhosh Rao,, S/o. Mallaiah, Aged 47 years, Oc: Employee, H.No. 2- 135, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. ...PETTTtONER(S) AND

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutlon of lnd i circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction, p r nature of Writ of lr/andamus declaring the action of the proposing to sell the semi-finished Flats in Tower A02 in S;t Pocharam Municipality, Ghatkesar, Medchal tVlalkajgiri, as st dated 10.09.2025 which flats were allotted to the petitic I respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, I Constitulion of lndia. Telangana Rajiv. Swagruha Corporation Limited (TRSC_ , Rep. by its Vice Chairman and llanaging Director, Having its Offbe at tt.,to.glO-t'S4, 1si- Floor, TGHCL Building, Street No.17, Himayathnagar, t{ derabad. tVlahanandhi Builders,, A Proprietary Concern, Rep. by t proprietor, Eppa S.uwarana, D/o. Eppa Ramulu, havihg its Office at H.No. -1siv, Gayad.i' Nagar, Meerpet, Saroomagar, Ranga Reddy.

...RESPONDENTS praying that in the lig h Court may be ferably a Writ in the first Respondent in lbhavana Township, rted in the Brochure ers by the second 1 and 300-4 of the lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l cpc praying that in the circ rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court m,r . be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of the proposal of thr: first respondent as stated in the Brochure to sell the semi-finished Flats in Tower A02 in sadbhavana Township, Pocharam Municiparity, Ghatkesar, tvredchar vrarkajgiri, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

lA NO: 2 OF 2O2

Between: AND

Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited (TRSCL), Rep. by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Having its Office at H.No.3-6-184, 1st Floor, TGHCL Building, Street No.17, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.1

o B.Prabhakar Rao,, S/o. Late Sri Mallaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Rl/o. House No.11-10-753, Raparty Nagar, Khimmam. i.5gtr9tlqr Rqg, S/o, LinEampally Lingarao, Aged 55 Years, Occ. Emptoyee, H.No. 1-96/1 , Shayampeta, Jammikunta, Karimhagar District. $.frun,, S/o. Tirupathi Rao, Aged 31 years, Occ. Employee, Fl/o. H.No.6-28, PO Korlapalli, Jammikunta Mandal, Karimnagar District. A.Rajeswara. -Rao, S/o. Errabelli Lakshmana Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-9'l , Gundrapalli, Jammikunta, Adilabad. !-,ltlanjulq, WJo Lingampally Lingarao, Aged 48 years, Occ.Employee, H.No.1-96/1, Shayampeta, Jammikunta, Karimnagar Diistrict. I Alji ReddV, S/o. Yanadi Reddy, Aged 62 years, Occ. Employee, plot No.101 , lndu Residency, DD Colony, Amberpet, Hyderabad. Prem Kumar Tiwari, S/o. Ramchandra Prasad Tiwari, Aged 62 Years, Occ.Employee, Shalibanda, Charminar, Hyderabad. Shaik Farzana,, D/o. Babumiya, Aged 29 years, Occ.Employee, 4-26, Vyta Road, Khammam District.

9. V.Thriveni, D/o. Rama Rao, Aged 28 years, Occ.Employee, H.No. 2-46, Raparthinagar, Khammam.

10. T.Spandana, D/o. Ravi Kumar, Aged 28 years, Occ. Employee, FYo. H.No.B- 5-13711, Nizampet, Near Jammi Banda, Khammam. 1 1. G.Satyavathi, D/o. G. Krishna, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-4-22, Kallur, Khammam District.

12. A. Anjaneyulu, S/o. A. Narayana, Aged 35 years, Occ. Employee, Rl/o. H.No.4-4311, Gollonipalli, Vedanda, Mahaboobnagar. 'l3.Md.Giyas Ali, S/o. Md.Shep ft1.ng9! 58 years, Occ. EmpJoyee, R/o H.No.B- 58, Bujjabagh, Andole, Medak District. '14.K Ravi Teja,, S/o. K. Tirupathi, Aged 29 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 1-29- 92, Jammigadda, Kapra, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. '1 5.K. Tirupathi,, S/o. K. Narsaiah, Aged 54 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 'l-29- 92, Jammigadda, Kapra, ECIL, Medchal-Malkajgiri.

16. A. SobhaRani,, W/o. A. Tirupathi Reddy, Aged 38 years, Occ. Employee, H. No. 14-1 , Thokalapalli, Chelkur, Karimnagar District.

17. G. Veerababu,, S/o. Venkat Rao, Aged 56 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 7-31 , Burgampad Village, Bhadadri Kothaguem.

18. S. Santhosh Rao,, Sio. Mallaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ. Employee, H.No.2- 'l 35, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

19. lvlahanandhi Builders,, A Proprietary Concern, Rep. by its Proprietor, Eppa Suwarana, D/o. Eppa Ramulu, having its Office at H.No.9-153V, Gayatri Nagar, Meerpet, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy.

...RESPOII )ENT/RESPONDENT Petition under section 1si cPc praying that in the c r )umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cour may be pleased to vacate the interim order dated 18/09/2025 in w.p.No. 2gso',t tf 2025 , dismiss the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI BASAM SHIVA TEJA Counsel for the Respondents: THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER

\ qs/ ? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 245,o2 OF 2o25 o,9.oL.2026 Between: B. Prabhakar Rao & others Petitioners And Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limitcd (TRSCL), Rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director & another Respondents

ORDER:

Challenging the action of the l"t respondent - Telangana Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited (Corporation) in proposing to sell the semi- frnished Flats Tower AO2 in Sadbhavana Township, Pocharam Municipality as stated in the Broacher dated 10.O9 .2025 which flats were allotted to petitioners by the 2,d respondent, this Writ Petition is filed.

2. The undisputed factual matrix of the case is that Respondent-Corporation invited Applications in respect of unfinished towers at Pocharam for completing the work. M/s Mahanandhi Builders (the 2"4 respondent) was allotted A02 Tower. at Pocharam uide proceedings Lr.No.

04 /TRSCLLEM / Unhnished T owers l 2023 dated 07.,'t.2023. Th-e 2,,d respondent paid EMD and also paid part of baliL ce amount, but did not complete the work of constructior L vvithin the permitted time of four months Hence, they mad,r Application dated 04.1O.2024 for extension of time which was , xtended up to 05.01.2025 by Corporation's letter dated 17.1O.2a 24

2. t In terms of the said allotment, the 2r,( lespondent advertised that I 20 flats arc available for sale ir A,O2 Tower Petitioners purchased Flat Nos. 1O4, 301, 8O3, 8C. , 806, 4O5, 4OA,2O4,2I2, 4O7, 4O9, 4O5, 4lO, 4O9,2Oa, 5O4,:i )8, and 8O5 of unlinished Tower at AO2 Pocharam Municipalitr . Ghatkesar, Medchal-Malkajgiri District in Sadbhavana To,, nship a.nd remitted the amor.rnt to respondent-Corporation. li nce the 2"d respondent failed to pay the amounts withilr timc, the Corporation passed the order of cancellation n Lr- No O4ITGRSCLEM/AO2 Unhnished Towers/PCHRM/, )23, dated 2l .O1.2025 cerncelling the allotment and forfeitir r advance and first instalment amount of Rs. 3,O5,1 l 2"d respondent approached the Corporation ar-r 1 letter dated 24.O3.2O25 for issuance of 'NOC'for cor work, however, 'NOC' was not given. The Corpc issued a communication to the 2"d respondent czrll / the token o00/-. The submitted Lpleting the 'ation also rg upon to l ? pay Rs. 29.51 Crores. The 2"d respondent submitted a list of 40 members who are ready to purchase the flats, but the 'NOC'is not given. The Corporation brought a proposal to sell the semi- finished flats in Tower A02 at Pocharam uide its broacher and Notification dated 10.09.2025. Issuance of 'NOC'by respondent- Corporation is a must for Respondent No.2 to obtain loans from the Banks to finish the project. If respondent-Corporation refuses to give 'NOC', it will cause irreparablc loss and prejudice to the Builder and also to the buyers, u'ho purchased flats through him.

3. The Respondent Corporation filed counter-afftdavit mainly contending that Writ Petition is not maintainable since the dispute is a commercial/ contractual one. It is stated that Government decided to sell the unfinished towers of the Corporation in 'as is where is' basis and invited bids. As stated above, Respondent No.2 was allotted AO2 unfinishod tower at Pocharam for completion of the work. They failed to make prompt payments and hence, the allotment was cancelled. Respondent No.2 therefore, filed Writ Petition NO. 28982 of 2025 challenging cancellation with an inordinate delay of Eight Months from the date of cancellation Ietter dated 21.01.2025; after expiry of statutory waiting period, the same tower was re-

notified for sale ttrrough a fresh notification dated frorn 22.01.2025 till date, there has been no cor r between respondent Corporation and the 2"d respor t 3.1. It is also stated, allotment letter dat('( itself expressly provides that no ownership rights : r, tower allottee, its associates, members of an Al;r prospective purchasers until the entire considerari r HMDA/TGRSOL; neither the tower allottee nor- claiming thror"rgh or under it is entitled to raise rlis arbitration, or asset rights over the subject progt Respondent No. 1 permitted the tower allottee to idc r indrvidual flats 1-o prospective purchasers, it r stipulated tha t registration of any flat - whether r allottee or any buycr, would be affected only aft( ) tower cost was paid to TGRSCL/HMDA. Some of llt chose on their own to make part payments either t,) or directly into the respondent corporation's acc unilateral deposits were never invited by TGRSC l expressly made at their own risk and responsibilitr o.o9.2025; :spondence en t.

25. O4.2023 crue to the ocizrtion or r is paid to lny pcrson rutes, seek rty. While ify or merrk ategorically r favour of thc entire pet itioncrs the allottee runt; such and were rnd cannot be construed as creating any independent co r ractual or proprietary right ir-r their favour. The primary oblipir tion to pay the full tower <;onsideration rests solely on Respond: rt No.2 and -/7

) until that obligation is discharged, no right, title or interest - statutory or contractual - accrues to any third party. Petitioners, therefore, cannot rely on their voluntary deposits to claim locus or seek writ relief against the Corporation.

3.2. It is a-lso stated, while Corporation allotted Tower A02 to Respondent No.2, any advertisements issued, promises made, or agreements entered by Respondent No.2 with petitioners were entirely privale arrangemcnts lor which the Corporation bears no responsibiiily. Thc allotment letter expressly madc Respondent No.2 solely liable to complete the construction and to discharge the entire tower consideration before any registration of individual flats could occur. Any assurances made by Respondent No.2 do not bind the Corporation in any manner. Petitioner's rcliance on such private transactions cannot create any contractual or statutory obligation against Respondent Corporation whose role was conhned to the original allotment and enforcement of its terms.

3.3. Respondent No.1 contends that project / tower remains incomplete as the tower concerned is only at the stage where the slab has been laid and the walls are constructed. Substantial finishing works are still pending and are contractually to be undertaken by Respondent No.2, the original _.1

allottee and buycr of the tower. Issuance of N( ) ) directlv to individuat purchasers of Respondent No.2 would () eate serious complications and for these reasons, Respondt r t No. I u,as constrained from issuing NOC in a fragmented m:tr ner and can do so only in accordance with the original allotntc t condition. Respondent No.1 issuing NOC in respect of Towr.r A04 to the original allottee nantely The Telangana Public Se(.t I Employccs Mutually Aiclcd Cooperative Housing Society ; cliffercnt. However, NOC rtris issued only to the Societ5z as the original allottee accompanied by specihc terms and condiri I rs requiring payment of full t,owcr cost before any registration : flats could take place. Respondent No.2 failed to mect contractual obligations. Petitioners' comparison with TGpSFIMI torver A04 transaction is tliercforc, misplaced and does not gi,,, rise to arry claim of unequal treatment or discrimination zrr r claims of preferential trealmenl under Article l4 cannot be srr tained. 3.4 . This rt:spondent contends that in , ew of t he repeated defaults by Respondent No.2 and carr.ellation of allotment on 21.O1.2O25 following the original alk t nent dated 25.04.2023, Respondent No.1 issued a fresh notifi: Ltion dated 1O.O9.2025 for au<:tion of tower A02 after expiry o{ I1 e statutory waiting period; u'irle publicity has been given to t:, : proposed auction through print and other media ald substaltial expenditure has already been incurred towards notification and advertisement. If the auction is now restrained or delayed, it would cause irreparable [-rnancial loss and serious prejudice to Respondent No.1 and diminish the value of the property.

4. Heard Sri P. Venu Gopal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Basam Shiva Teja, learned counsel lor petitioncrs, Sri A. Suclarshan Reddy, learned Advocate General for the Respondent Corporation and Sri Vedula Srinivas, Iearned Senior Counsel assisted by Smt. Vedula Chitra Lekha, lcarned counsel for Respondent No.2.

5. The core contention of Respondent Corporation is that the lis is a comme rcial / contractual dispute and hence, no Writ of Mandamus is maintainable. Reliance for this proposition is placed on Monarch Infrastructure (P) Ltd- a. Comrnissioner, Ulhasnagar Muiicipal Corporationt; Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. us State of Kantataka2 and G.P. Medical Stores /|{[MS, rep bg its Partner S.Mohith u State of Telangana rep. bg its Principal Secretary, Medical ' (2ooo) '{2o121 5 SCC 287 8 SCC 216

and Health Department3. The principlc in these pronouncements is that Government and their -r rdertakings must have a free trzrnd in setting terms of the ten<lt and only if they are arbitrarv, discriminatory, mala fide is actue .ed by bias, would Courts intcrfere. Otherwise, the Courts, norr .all1', would not interfere in contractual/commercial disputes,

6. Per conlra, learned Senior Counsel a 1 pearing lor Respondent No.2 placecl reliance on the judgment < f the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Subodh Kumar Songh Rathour u the Chiet Executiae OfJicer (Civil Appeal No. 67 4l of 20'24 , dt.Og.O7 .2024) rcported in MANU/ SC I 0585 12024 . I .r this case, petitioner, who was the successful bidder. was given Memorandum of te nder for work. Thereafter, respo:' lent issucd a notice to the a ppellant stating that tender I rr u'ork of maintenance had becn cancelled on account of techr ical fault in Lender. Applvinq thc principle of doctrine r I 'legitimrrtc expectation in pul;lic lau, founded on the principlr: of fairncss and non-arbitrarincss in Government dealing with ndividuals, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the Appeal holding eis under: ' (20241 SCC OnLinc 'lS 332 1

"

130. We are of the considered opinion that the litigation at hand is nothing but a classic text book case of an arbitrary exercise of powers bv the Respondent in cancelling the tender that was issued in favour o[ the appellant and that too at the behest of none other than the concerncd Minister-ln-charge and there by rendering the Notice of Cancellation dt.O7 .O2 -2023 illegal."

6.1. This judgment is of no help. The facts in the case on hand are different from the facts of the said case. In the extant casc, admittedly, Respondent No.2 failed to make payments as sl-ipulatcd in the terms of contract, in spite of extension of time, within thc stipulated time. Therefore, Respondent Corporation was constrained to cancel the allotment. There is neither arbilrarincss nor it was done at the behest of any person. Once the allotment is cancelled, respondent-Corporation would naturally sell the unhnished flats. Further, in the case relied on by Rcspondent No.2, a judicial review of the act of the respondcnt (writ of certiorari) was sought for, but not a Mandamus. In the case on hand, a writ of MandamuJ is sought. Time and again the Hon'ble Apex Court is sensitizing that the High Courts should not interfere with the disputes of commercial/ contractual in nature unless such disputes are the result of arbitrariness/unfairness etcetera on the part, of the l0 State or Instrr.rmen talities of the State. Such dispr-rtt decided by thr: Commercial Courts.

7. In contrzrctual agreement, by defaultirr payments within thc timc agrced to in the Respondent No.2 committed breach of contra<: respondent-Corporation has acted upon b), impugned order. In this set of facts, what is the riglr fundamental/ statutory right, of pe titioners that iv for invoking ArLicle 226 of the Constitution is rrrr established. It is not even the case of petitioner-: Respondent Nr,.l that respondent Corporati,r competency or au[hority to pass the impugned orde interest element is involved for issuance of a writ o under Art. 22t> ol tltc Constitulion elen.

8. Further more , as could be seen from t.r Respondent Corporation, allotmenl [etter dated itsell expressly provides Lhat no orvnership rights ,t tower aliottee, its associates, members of an A; prospective purchasers until the entire consideraltc HMDA/TGRSCL; ne ither the tower allottee nor claiming through or under it is entitled to raise dL: arbitration, or assct rights over the subject prop, ; have to be , in making agl'eement, as such, rsuing the , much less rs infringed pleaded or or that of r has no -. No public Mandamus : counter of ls.o+.zozs 'crue to the ociation or r is paid to 1ny person putes, seek rty. Wirile ll Respondent No.1 permitted the tower allottee to identify or mark individual flats to prospective purchasers, it categorically stipulated that registration of any flat - whether in favour of allottee or any buyer, would be affected only after the entire tower cost was paid to TGRSCL/HMDA. Some of the petitioners chose on their own to make part payments either to the allottee or directly into the respondent corporation's account; such unilateral deposits were never invited by TGRSCL and were expressly made at their own risk and responsibility and cannot be construed as creating any independent contractual or proprietary right in their favour.

9. Since Respondent No.2 failed to discharge the primary obligation to pay the full tower consideration, no right, title or interest statutory or contractual - accrues to any third party. Petitioners, therefore, cannot rely on their voluntary deposits to claim iocus or seek writ relief agfainst the Corporation. Further, any advertisements issued, promises made, or agreements entered by Respondent No.2 with petitioners were entirely privatp arrangements for which the Corporation bears no responsibility. The allotment letter expressly made Respondent No.2 solely liable to complete the construction and to discharge the entire tower consideration t2 before any registration of individual flats c( Petitioner's relian<:e on such private transactions ( i any contractual or statutory obligation against Corporation r,r,hose role u,as confined to the origirr and enforcement of its terms.

10. The other aspect, which has to be seer.t of NOC direclly to individual purchasers of Res;x would create serious complications. Respondent NOC in respect of Tower AO4 to the original allottc,r Telangana Public Sector Employees Mutually Aidecl Housing Society. In this case, Respondent No.2 fa contractual obligations, hence, petitioners' com r TGPSEMA tower A04 transaction is therefore, mi does not give rise to any claim of unequal tr discrimination and claims of preferential Lre:rtr Article 14 cannol bc sustained.

11. Further, consequent upon cancellation on 21.01.2025, Respondent No.l issued a fresl dated 10.09.2025 for auction of tower A02 after : statutory waiting period; wide publicity has been proposed auction through print and other substantial expenditure has already been incurr ald occur. nnot create Qespondent LI allotment is issuance ndent No.2 ''lo. L issued namely The Cooperative led to meet Lrison with placed and latment or rent under rf allotment notification rpiry of the iven to the ne.dia and :d towards l3 notification and advertisement. If the auction is now restrained or delayed, it would cause irreparable financial loss and serious prejudice to Respondent No.1 and diminish the value of the property. t2 For the above reasons, the Writ Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

13. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if To, TJ any shall stand closcd S /.P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC to Sri Basam Shiva Teja, Advocate [O

2. Two CCs to:the Advocate General, High Court for the State of Telangana, at HyderabadlOUTl

3. Two CD CoPies t (-

HIGH COURT DATED:0910112026

ORDER

WP.No.28502 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS HE SIA ,lt ( s! FESfr ) \ + b' ,)':.t. :, il. ,. . ...r-:.,,:i:.'ilti,i.:/r:......:.r'.''. .. . ,"c*&.dli