WP/16547/2025 of Sri.A.Rajender, Vs The State of Telangana, on 9 January 2026

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of Respondent No.6 in issuing proceedings dated 02.06.2025, whereby the request of Petitioners for exemption from payment of license fee and encroached portion rents for the period from 23.09.2023 till restoration of possession of DOT Shop Nos. 16, 17 and 18 at Jagitial Bus Station was rejected, and Petitioners were directed to pay license fee and encroachment charges from O2.O9.2O21 till restoration of possession. Petitioners atrso assail the consequential action of Respondents in proceeding with E- Tender Notification dated 11.O4.2O25 and letter dated 14.05 2025, despite pendency of representations and subsisting orders of this Court, alleging that the impugned proceedings are arbitraly, contrary to the Advocate Commissioner,s report dated 06-02.2024, viorative of the common order dated 2r.r0.2o24 passed in writ petitions No. 3309T of 2023 and 19732 of 2024, and in trreach of the principles o[ naturaljustice.

Petitioners state that petitioner No. t is ricensees of Dor sh':p Nos. 16 and 1T and, petitioner No.2 is the ricensee of Dor Sh,rp No. 1g situated within the premises of Jagtiyal Bus station- It is stated, the Respondent corporation, with a view to utilise vzrcant land available in Jagtial Bus Station, invited bids from int':ndipg business persons under the Deposit, operate and Tra'sfer (Dor) scheme for construction and operation of shops and stalrs within the bus station premises. pursuant to the said Notification, petitioners submitted bids for the above Dpr Shocs, offering to pay a monthry license fee o[ Rs.5,00o/- per shop' and a non-refundabre deposit of Rs.2,40,0 oo / - towards r:onstruction and allotment of the said shops. The corporation accepted the bids submitted by petitioners and communic:ated the acceptance uid"eretters dated 0g.o1.2o15, on receipt ol' which, Petitioners deposited the non-refundable amount ol'Rs.2,4o,ooo/-. A ricense was thereafter, granted in favour of Petitioners for a fixed period of twenty (2o) years commenci,g from og.o2.2o1s and ending on og.02.203s, with a specific stipulation that upon expiry of the ricense period, they ""

J /1 tY should vacate and hand over possession of the shops to the Corporation and that no extension of license period would be permitted beyond the said term.

2.1. It is contended, after several years of uninterrupted operation of the shops, Respondent No.S issued Notice-Il dated

15. Og.2021 alleging that Petitioners encroached upon additional area measuring 232.75 square feet, 23L.16 square feet and 23L.t6 square feet respectively in front of the allotted shops, purportedly based on the inspection report dated 31.08.2O2I.It is the specific case of Petitioners that the said inspection report was never furnished to them, despite repeated demands, thereby depriving them of an opportunity to verify or contest the alleged measurements. Subsequent notices dated O5.O7.2022' 2*,11.2022, 06.01.2023 and 05.06.2023 reiterated the very same allegations of encroachment without supplying any supporting material or report. It is stated, the Regional Tender Committee convened a meeting on 22.06.2022 in connection with the alleged encroachment, during the course of which, Petitioners, without admitting the allegations, expressed their willingness to pay additional license fee of Rs.2,OOO/- in respect of the alleged encroached area in order to resolve the matter amicably. However, the said offer was not accepted by the Regional Tender Committee. Thereafter, by notices dated

25. Lr.rl,o22 and 06.01 .2023, the corporation demanded monthly amounts of Rs.2S,32tl_, Rs.25,2 16/_ and Rs.20,7g3/_ respectively with effect from o2.og.2o2l towards license fee and charges, for utitisation of additional space, coupled with a threat of terrrrination of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit in the event of non-payment.

2.2. Petitioners contend that the Regional Tender committee lacked jurisdiction to unilaterally determine disputes relating to terms and conditions of the license or to impose additional financiat liability. According to them, clause 32 of the License Agreement specifically provides that any dispute arising out of t,:rms and conditions of the license shall be decided by the Managing Director of the corporation and that the decision of the lVlanaging Director alone would be final and binding on the parries. Petitioners further contend that similar notices alleging encroachment were issued to all 21 Dor shops located in Jagirjal Bus station, demonstrating arbitrariness and mechanical action on the part of the Respondents. Aggrieved by the shovr cause notice dated 21.or.2023, petitioners f,rled writ Petition l,lo. 2o696 of 2023, wherein, by order dated o3.og.2o23, directed them to submit expranation within two weeks and directed the Regionar Manager to consider the same after affording.b{€asonable opportunity of hearing, whire restraining

2-r l1\., Respondents from taking any coercive steps till completion of the said exercise. It is stated, due to oversight, they failed to submit explanation within the time stipulated. Consequently, Respondent No.6 issued a'f-rnal order terminating the license of Petitioners uid"e proceedings dated 19.09.2023. Immediately thereafter, Petitioners submitted the representation dated

21. O9.2023 requesting reconsideration of termination. Despite the same, Respondents closed the DOT shops on 23.09.2023 by removing Petitioners' belongings and locking the premises.

2.3. Petitioners challenged the termination order in Writ petition No. 27244 of 2023 which was disposed of on

18. LO.2023, directing Respondents to consider the representation dated 21.O9.2023 and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant thereto, proceedings dated 23.L1-2023 were issued. According to Petitioners, the said proceedings failed to properly consider their explanation and did not assign cogent reasons for rejecting their contentions. They thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 33097 0f 2023 wherein, an Advocate commissioner was appointed to conduct local inspection of subject Shops who submitted the report dated 06.02.2024 stating that the actual encroachment, if any, was only to an extent of 5.95 square feet in respect of Shop Nos.16 and 18 and 63.7 square feet in respect of Shop No.17, which was substantially lesser than the I I I

extent alleged in the earlier notices. It is specifically stated that no objr:ctions were filed by Respondents to the said report. while the said writ petition was reserved for orders, Respondents issued E-Tender Notification dated og.or.2024 for re-allotment of the subject shops which was chailenged in writ Petition No-19737 of 2024. Both the writ petitions were ultimat:ly disposed of by a common order dated 2L.Lo.2o24, directing Petitioners to pay charges for the encroached portion as per r-he rules in force and directing Respondents to consider leasing of the shops thereafter 2.4- petitioners state that despite submitting represe:rtations dated 01.1 1 .2024 and lo.o2.2o2s seeking implem,:ntation of the directions issued by this court, (esponrlent No.7 issued proceedings dated 03.03.2o25 calculating dues for the period from O2.Og.2O2l to 22.Og.2O23 but enctosed a carculation sheet reflecting outstanding amounts up to {}1.oL-2o2s. They submitted a detailed representation dated o'7.o3.2025 specifically stating that they were not liable to pay an'/ charges for the period from 23.og.2o23 onwards, during which the shops remained crosed. while the said represerrtation was pending consideration, Respondents issued fresh E'Tender Notification dated LL.o4.2o25 foilowed by the letter derted L4-os.2025 seeking implementation of the tender-

G Petitioners submitted another representation dated 17.O5.2O25 agreeing to pay the encroachment charges excluding the closed period and requesting de-notification of the tender. Thereafter, they liled Writ Petition No.15200 of 2025, wherein this Court, by order dated 2L.O5.2O25, directed that tender process shall be subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition. Despite subsistence of the said order, Respondent No.6 issued the impugned proceedings dated 02.06.2025 which necessitated {iling of the present Writ Petition.

3. By order dated 2L.O5.2O25, while issuing notice before admission, this Court directed that tenders in respect of subject stalls pursuant to the impugned e-tender notification dated L1.o4.2o25 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ Petition.

4. Respondent Corporation filed counter-aflidavit stating that Petitioners have repeatedly violated the terms and conditions of the License Agreement, therefore, are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petitioners were allotted subject shops; at the time of initial allotment, monthly license fee was fixed at Rs.5,O00/- per shop; however, Respondents categorically deny the contention of Petitioners that license fee remained Rs.5,OOO/- throughout the license period. tt is specificzrlly contended that Petitioners have deliberately suppressed material facts relating to enhancement of license fee. In 2017, Petitioners themselves approached the Corporation seeking permission to change the nature of business carried on in the allotted shops. Upon due consideration, the competent authori'y permitted such change of business and approved enhanc,:ment of license fee. In respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16 and 17, nature of business rfiras changed from 'Kirana and Genera. Store' to 'Food Court & Snacks with Non-Veg Items'. Pursuart thereto, an additional license fee of Rs.4,1OO/- was levied, and the total monthly license fee was revised to Rs.9,1C'0/- with effect from 15.02.2017. In respect of DOT Shop No.18, Petitioner No.2 changed the nature of business from Ueans Corner' to 'Super Market', and the license fee was enhanced by Rs.2,SOOl-, making the total monthly license fee Rs.7,500/- with effect from O l.06.20 17. Petitioners accepted the revised license fees and paid the same regularly without any protest or objection, therefore, the plea of Petitioners that license fee continued to be Rs.S,0OO/- per month is false and intendt:d to mislead this Court. 4-L. Respondents further state that during inspections in 2021, it was noticed that petitioners had unauthorisedly encroached upon additional area beyond the allotted shop : I I I I {

tr premises, which constituted government property within the bus station. Accordingly, notices were issued, despite the same, Petitioners neither vacated the encroached portion nor complied with the payment demands. Consequently, a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was issued, granting an opportunity to submit explanation. The Petitioners challenged the said show cause notice by filing writ Petition No. 20696 of 2023. This Court, by order dated O3.O8.2O23, directed them to submit explanation within two weeks. Since Petitioners failed to comply with the said directions license was validly terminated by final order dated lg.Og.2023. Even thereafter, Petitioners continued to assert possessory rights over the subject shops and preVented Corporation from taking physical possession or proceeding with re-allotment by filing successive writ petitions. Due to pendency of the said writ petitions, the corporation was effectively restrained from exercising its rights as lessor and from issuing fresh tender notifications in respect of the subject shops.

4.2. It is therefore, contended that Respondents were justified in calculating arrears and differential license fee up to 31.01.2025, as Petitioners themselves prevented re-allotment and continued to assert rights over public properry. No benefit or income accrued to the Corporation during this period, as the stalls remained locked due to the ongoing litigation initiated by : l0 I Petitioners. Respondents place reliance on the Advocate Commisisioner's report dated 06.02.2024, which quantified the encroached area as 5.95 square feet in respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16 and 18 and 63.7 square feet in respect of DOT Shop No.17. it is asserted that Petitioners never challenged the said report rrnd, therefore, findings regarding encroachment have attainecl finality.

4. g. It is further submitted that calculation of encroachment charges was carried out in a transparent and standardised manner, strictly in accordance with the norms adopteci b), the Corporation. The formula adopted involved derivinE; the rate per square foot by dividing the applicable monthhr license fee by the allotted area and multiplying the same vrith the extent of encroached area confirmed during inspection and as per the Advocate Commissioner's report. The said method ensures proportionality and uniformity and cannot be terrred arbitrary or illegal. Respondents contend that proceedings dated O3-O3.2O25 were issued in compliance with the corrLmon order dated 21.1O.2024 passed by this Court, and that thr: subsequent proceedings dated 02.06.2025 were issued after aflording personal hearing to Petitioners on 24.05.2025. The all:gation that the impugned proceedings were passed without opportunity of hearing is denied. Respondents further r\ ll state that representations dated O7.O3.2O25 and 17.05.2025 submitted by Petitioners were considered but rejected as untenable, as they sought exemption from payment for a period during which they continued to assert possessory rights.

4.4. It is finally contended that Petitioners are habitual defaulters and they approached this Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts; they repeatedly failed to comply with contractual obligations and judicial directions. Therefore, Petitioners are not entitled to any equitable relief and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Heard Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri N. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

6. . At the outset, it is not in dispute that Petitioners were granted license in respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16, 17 and 18 situated at Jagitial Bus Station for a fixed period of twent$ years commencing from O9.O2.2O15 and ending on 08.O2.2035. It is also an admitted position that pursuant to acceptance of their bids, Petitioners deposited. a non-refundable amount of Rs.2,4O,OOOl- and entered into a license arrangement governed by the terms and conditions. These foundational facts are not in controversy between the Parties t t2

7. The dispute essentially emanates from allegations of encroachment of additional area beyond the allotted shop premises and the consequential financial demands raised by the Respon<lents on that basis. The record discloses that such allegaticns led to a series of notices, representations, termina-ion proceedings, and multiple rounds of litigation before t.ris court. tt is evident from the record that on earlier occasior s, this court directed Respondents to consider the explanalions and representations submitted by petitioners in accordance with law and restrained Respondents from initiating coercive action pending such consideration. In the course of writ Per-ition No. 33ogr of 2023, this court, in order to objectively ascertain the extent of alleged encroachment, appointed an Advocate commissioner to conduct a local inspection of Dor Shops who submitted the report dated 06.02.2024, wherein the extent of encroachment was quantified as 5.95 siquare feet each in respect of Shop Nos.16 and 1g and 63-7 sqLrare feet in respect of Shop No.17. The said report demonstu'ated that the extent of encroachment was substant.ally lesser than what was originally alleged by the Respondt:nts in the earlier notices. It is significant to note that no object ons were filed by the Respondents to the said report. i, s'

i\ l3

8. Taking into consideration the Advocate Commissioner's report and the submissions of both the sides, this Court disposed of Writ Petition Nos. 33097 of 2OQ3 and L9737 of 2024 by a common order dated 21.10.2024 directing Petitioners to pay charges for the encroached portion as per the rules in force and further directed Respondents to consifler the Petitioners' representation for leasing of the shops thereafter. The said order attained finality and continues to bind the parties. Pursuant to the said directions, Respondent No.7 issued proceedings dated 03.03.2025, wherein charges were calculated for the period from O2.Og.2021 to 22.Og.2023 towards unauthorised utilisation of additional space. Hqwever, the calculation sheet enclosed to the said proceedings reflected outstanding amounts up to 31.OL.2O25, including the period during which the DOT shops were admittedly closed by Respondents from 23.Og.2A23 onwards. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated

07. O3.2O25 specifically raising an objection tJ:at they could not be fastened with Iinancial liability for the period from

23. O9.2023 onwards, during which they were dispossessed and the shops remained closed.

9. The stand of petitioner is the said representation .-: dated 07 -O3.2O25 was not conside/red by the Corporation, howeve::, the latter proceeded to issue e-tender notification dated LL.O4.2O25 and a consequential letter dated 14.05.2025. Challenging the same, Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1S2OO of 2025. By order dated 21.05.2025, this Court directed that any tender process in respect of DOT Shop Nos. 16, L7 and i8 pursuarrt to the dated L1.O4.2O25 shall be subject to the outcomr: of the Writ Petition.

10. However, it is to be seen from the counter of the Corporation that the impugned proceedings dated 03.03.2025 were issued in strict compliance with the directions of this Court and based on the Advocate-Commissioners' report and inclusion of the period 23.09.2023 to 31.01.2025 in the calculation sheet is justified as petitioners had not surrendered \t possessLon and the encroached space remained occupied. It is also stated, petitioners subsequent representations dated 07.03.21)25 and 17.05.2025 were not acceptable since they sought to exclude the period for which they were tiable for paymen[ as per Court directions and the further proceedings dated 0'.2.06.2025 were issued after providing personal hearing to petitioners on 24.o5.2025, hence the allegation of violation of principlt:s of natural justice is denied 1 1. From the above and from the conduct of petitioners in approaching this court, as stated earlier, this court finds .(^ ,t I I

I

some force in the contention of the Corporation that petitioners are habitual defaulters and they approached this court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts and they failed to comply with contractual obligations and judicial"directions. This court therefore, is of the opinion that respondent - corporation acted lawfully and in public interest to prevent unauthorised occupation of public property. The Writ petition, in the circumstances, is liable to be dismissed. $

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

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

\ //TRUE COPY/ SD/- C. DEEP SISTANT SECTION OFFICER of Telangana at To

1. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court fo Hyderabad. [OUT]

2. One CC to t\tllSS. VLAD IMEER KHATOON, Advocate PUCI

3. One CC to SRI N.CHANDRA SHEKAR, Advocate (O

4. Two CD Copies SA GJP

HIGH COURT DATED:09/0112026

ORDER

WP.No.16547 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W. WITHOU]r COSTS. 2 t Jrtt 2026 ii: SE;'.r{ )'; _,1 1. - .2, t o .'/ t n bh