WP/15200/2025 of Sri.A.Rajender Vs The State of Telangana on 9 January 2026

1. Sri.A.Rajender, S/o.Rajaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ; €usiness, R/o.H.No.'l-1-249,Weekly Bazar, Jagliyal,Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505451.

2. Sri.M.Dayanandam, S/o.Narsaiah, Aged about 39 yeals, Occ ;Business, Fyo.H.No.4-1-13Ol2,Yani Nagar, Jagtiyal,Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505451.

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Vice Chairman, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

3. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director,Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

4. Executive Director, (REV. and lT) and Secretary to Corporation, Bus Bhavan,OPD (Mktg. and Corn)wing, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

5. The Divisional lVlanager, TGRTC, Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505 00'l .

6. The Regional Manager, TGRTC,Karimnagar Region, Karimnagar Diskict,Telangana State-So5 001 .

7. The Depot Manager, TGRTC, Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, Telangana State-505 001. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may {e pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamlts declaring the action of the 6th Respondent issued a Letter dated.14losl202li to implement the E-Tender Notification No.E5/437(02)l2D2.RIV.KR,dated.11.O4.2025 is highly, unwarranted, highly arbitrary, unfair, unjust, irrational, unlawful and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the same. l.A.NO:1OF 2025 Petition Urder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filetl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim suspension of Letter dated.14.05.2025 to implement the E-Tender Notification No.E:S/ 437(02) I 202.RIV.KR,dated. 11.04.2025 pending disposal of the main writ pe':ition. I.A.NO:2 OF 20?5 Petition Lnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.6 85 7 to consider the representation date.17.O5.2O2S pending disposzrl of the main writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : MISS VLADIMEER KHATOON Counsel for the, Respondent No.1 : GP FOR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 : SRI N.CHANDRA SHEKAR The Court made the following ORDER

t

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT No. 152OO or'2025 o,9.oL.20/26 Between: A.Rajender & another And Petitioners The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, & others. ... .. Respondents ORD ER: This writ Petition is fited aggrieved by the action of the 6fr Respondent in issuing Letter dated 14.05.2025 seeking to implement e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 in respect of DOT Shops/Stalls No 16, 17 and 18 situated in Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, despite subsistence of a valid and unexpired Deed of License granted in favour of Petitioners for a fixed period of twenty years and despite pendency and culmination of earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties concerning the very same subject matter. Petitioners seek a writ of mand.amus declaring the said action as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms of the Deed of License, and for consequential reliefs. 2' petitioners state that petitioner No. i is an individual engaged in lawful commercial activity and is the successf,l licensee under the Deposit, operate and rransfer (Dor) Scheme in respect of shops/Stalls No.16, 1,T and 1g situated at Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, and Petitione. No-2 is similarly praced and jointry holds the said license along with petitioner No.l. 2'l- It is stated that corporation, in furtherance of its statutory functions, invited bids for construction and operation of shops/stalls in the vacant rand availabre at Jagtiyal Bus station under the Deposit, operate and Transfer (Dor) scheme, by. collec'-ing non-refundable deposits from intending business persons ztnd stipulating payment of a fixed monthly license fee, subject t,r the terms and conditions contained in the Deed of License. ?ursuant to the said notification, they submitted bids for DOT lihops/Stalls No. L6, 17 and 1g located at Jagtiyal Bus Station, .ffering to pay a monthly license fee of Rs.S,0OO/_ per stall in addition to a non-refundabre deposit of Rs.2,40,ooo/-. The said offer was accepted and communicated to petitioners vide lette':s dated 0g.o1.20rs. pursuant to the said acceptance, l d petitioners deposited Rs.2,40,OOO/ - towards non'refundable deposit, which, as per the terms of the scheme, does not carry any interest.

2.2. It is further stated that a Deed of License was thereafter executed in favour of Petitioners granting them license to construct, operate and conduct business in the said DOT Shops/Stalls for a fixed and non-extendable period of twenty (2Ol years commencing from o9.o2.2o15 and ending on O8.O2.2O35. The Deed of License specifically stipulates that upon expiry of the said license period, the Petitioners shall vacate the shops and hand over vacant possession to the Respondent Corporation and that no extension of the license period shatl be granted beyond the stipulated term.

2.3. Petitioners state that while they were carrying on their business strictly in accordance with the terms of the Deed of License, the 5th Respondent issued Notice-ll dated

15. Og.2O21 alleging that a committee comprising the 6th Respondent, the Deputy Executive Engineer (C), Karimnagar and the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Jagtiyal, had inspected stalls and found that Petitioners had allegedly encroached additional areas measuring 232.75 sq.ft, 231.16 sq.ft and 23L.16 sq.ft respectively. Petitioners specifically contended that l i lnspectio' report dated 3r.0g.2o21, which formed the basis of the said notice, \rras never furnished to them. The said notice directed Petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached area additional license fee, failing which forthwith or to pay terminati,:n of license and forfeiture of the non-refundabre deposit was threatened. 2-4- It is stated that thereafter, another notice dated o5.o7.20'.12 was issued reiterating the very same allegations. The Regional Tender committee convened a meeting on 22-06-20'.12 and held negotiations with petitioners in relation to the alieg':d encroachment, during the course of which, they expresse(l readiness / willingness to pay additional license fee of Rs.2,ooo,t- for the alleged additional area, without prejudice to their con:ention that there was no encroachment. However, the said proposal was not accepted by the Regional Tender committr:e. Petitioners further state that notices dated 25.1L.2o'22 :rnd 06.0r.2o23 were issued alleging vioration of Item No 2 of the Deed of License, stating that Tender committt:e, Karimnagar had decided to collect enhanced monthly ,rmounts of Rs.25,32I/_, Rs.25,216/_ and Rs.2O,7g3/_ respectivt:ly from 02.09.2021 towards license fee and charges for utlliztttion of the aileged additionar space. petitioners were r)

,o called upon to pay the said amounts along with arrears within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which termination of license and forfeiture of deposit was threatened. A further notice dated 05.06.2023 reiterating the same demands was also issued.

2.5. It is stated that a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was thereafter issued, making reference to all the earlier notices dated I5.O9.2O2L, O5.O7 -2022, 25.11.2022, 06.01 .2023 and. 05.06.2023, and calling upon Petitioners to submit their explanation within seven days. It is asserted, from the inception of license, there was no encroachment whatsoever in front of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16 and 17 and that the front tin roof provided for shelter does not amount to encroachment. Regional Tender Committee has no authority or jurisdiction to alter or re-determine the terms and conditions of the Deed of License and that in terms of Clause 32 of the Deed of License, any dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of the license can only be decided by the Managing Director of APSRTC/TSRTC, whose decision alone is final and binding on the parties. It is also stated, there are twenty-one (2ll DOT Shops/Stalls in Jagtiyal Bus Station and that similar notices were issued to all such stall holders.

- .\\\ r^- .. i. d

2.6. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated

21. O7.2O23, Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20696 of 2023. By order datr:d 03.O8.2023, this Court declined to quash the show cause notice but directed Petitioners to submit their explanation within tu'o weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further drrected the Regional Manager, Karimnagar to consider the explanation, afford reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, while restraining the Respondr:nts flrom initiating any coercive steps in the interregnum. Petitioners however, due to oversight, could not submit r:xplanation within the time stipulated. Thereafter, the 6th Respondent issued Final Order dated 19.O9.2023 terminating the license granted in favour of Petitioners; irhmediately thereafter, Petitioners submitted representation submit their dated t.L.O9.2023 requesting permission to explanar-ion and seeking reconsideration of the matter. However, the DO'l Shops/Stalls were closed by the Respondents from

23. O9-2r)23 onwards.

2.7. Petitioners thereafter, fiIed Writ Petition No. 27244 of 2023' seeking a direction to Respondents to consider their representation dated 21.09.2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.10.2023 directing the 6th r)

,o Respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, proceedings dated 23.11.2023 were issued by the 6th Respondent, which according to Petitioners did not properly consider their explanation and failed to assign cogent or sustainable reasons. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioners challenged the said proceedings in Writ Petition No.33097 of 2023. Pursuant to directions of this Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct local inspection of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18. The Advocate Commissioner submitted the report stating that alleged encroachment was only 5.95 sq.ft in respect of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16 and 18 and 63.7 sq.ft in respect of DOT Stall No.17, which is wholly contrary to the alleged eneroachment of 232.75 sq.ft and 231.16 sq.ft mentioned in the show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 and earlier notices.

2.8. While Writ Petition No. 33097 of 2023 was pending adjudication before this Court, Respondents issued e-Tender Notification dated 08.O7.2024 calling for fresh bids in respect of the very same shops. Petitioners immediately submitted representation dated 18.07.2024 bringing to the notice of Respondents that subject matter was pending before this Court and thereafter, fited Writ Petition No.19737 of 2024 challenging

the said ,:-Tender Notification. By a common order dated 21.10.2024 in Writ Petitions No. 33O97 of 2023 and 19737 of 2024, this Court directed Petitioners to pay the requisite charges as per the rules in force for the encroached portion as indicaterl in the Advocate commissioner's report and further directed that upon such payment, Respondent corporation shall consider leasing the shops in favour of the petitioners.

2.9. Petitioners state that in compliance vyith the said directiorrs, they submitted representations dated 01. 1 1 .2024 and 1o.o2.2025. However, Respondent corporation issued proceed'ngs dated 03.03.2025 demanding payment for the period liom O2.O9.2O21 to 3L.OL.2O2S, including the period during which the shops were admittedly closed by the Respon<lents from 23.o9.2023 onwards. petitioners submitted a further representation dated 07.o3.2o25 specifically stating that they arr: not liable to pay license fee for the period during which they were dispossessed and expressed readiness to pay charges up to 23.09.2023. 2.1O. While the said representation was stilt pending consideration, Respondents issued a fresh e-Tender Notification dated 11.o4.2o25 and issued Letter dated 14.os.2o25 seeking to implement the same. petitioners immediately submitted n i : .,i-" .,:_:: ,..::i n representation dated 17.O5.2O25 agreeing to pay the encroachment charges determined by the authorities excluding the period from 23.09.2023 till restoration of possession and requesting de-notification of the tender. The said representation has not been considered till date. Petitioners contend that the license granted in their favour is valid and subsisting till 08.02.2035 and that issuance of a fresh tender during the subsistence of the license, without lawfully terminating the same and without complying with the binding orders passed by this Court, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of lndia, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3. No counter affidavit has been {iled by the Respondents. There is no denial on record of the factual assertions made by the Petitioners.

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

5. Petitioners' case is that they are entitled to exemption from payment of license fee and encroachment charges for the period commencing from 23.09.2023 till restoration of possession and that issuance of e-Tender ft\ _\

l0 Notilicatic,n dated 11.O4.2O25 is arbitrary. This Court is unable to accept the said contention.

6. It is not in dispute that Petitioners were granted license trnder the Deposit, Operate and Transfer scheme pursuant to proceedings dated O8.01.2OL5 which commenced from O9.O2.2O15, governed by the terms and conditions of the Deed of l,icense and the applicable rules and regulations of the Respondt:nt Corporation. The license, though for a fixed period, is not urrconditional and does not confer an absolute right to continue irrespective of violations. The material on record reveals teat inspections conducted by Respondents in August, 2o2l dir;closed unauthorised occupation of additional area beyond l-he sanctioned shop limits. Therefore, notices dated 15.09.202t, O5.O7.2022, 25.Lt.2022, 06.01 .2023 and o5.o6.2a23 were issued alleging encroachment and demanding payment of charges, however, Petitioners did not vacate the encroactred area nor did they comply with the demands raised. Their contention that inspection report was not supplied does not absolve them of the obligation to respond substantively or comply provisionally, particularly when repeated notices were issued over a period exceeding two years n

..-jr---.:.,-1-:---::-.::::.-'.,.'-:::::il__:j:: :j ::1:::a_::-:t::::-_,::: ..-:-.:. . =- -..-l n ll

7. The plea that the Regional Tender Committee lacked jurisdiction is also devoid of merit. Notices issued were preliminary in nature and culminated in a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023, which was subjected to judiqial scrutiny in Writ Petition No. 20696 of 2023.ln the said case, by order dated O3.O8.2O23, this Court granted Petitioners liberty to submit explanation within two weeks and restrained coercive action till consideration of such explanation. It is an admitted fact that Petitioners failed to submit any explanation within the time granted by this Court. Having failed to avail a judicially-granted opportunity, they cannot later contend violation of principles of natural justice.

8. The termination proceedings dated 19.09.2023 thus flowed directly from Petitioners' non-compliance with the directions of this Court and cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Even after termination, Respondents acted with restraint and considered Petitioners' representation dated 2L.O9.2O23 pursuant to directions issued in Writ Petition No.27244 of 2023. Subsequently, in W.P.No.33O9T of 2023, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the report dated 06.02.2024 quantified the extent of encroach*.rri. Though petitioners rely heavily on the said report which states that \

t2 encroacflment is very meagre and not as stated by respondents in the notices, the same does not advance their case unless they discharge the corresponding {-rnancial liability arising therefrom. The conlmon order dated 21.10.2024 in Writ petitions No. 33097 of 2023 and 19737 of 2024 did not grant unconditional restoration of possession. on the contrary, it clearly directed Petitionr:rs to pay charges for the encroached portion as per the rules in force, and only thereafter directed the Respondents to consider leasing of the shops.

9. Further, this Court also finds substance in Responrlents' contention that fresh e-Tender Notification dated ll.o4.2t)25 was issued only after Petitioners failed to clear the dues de spite repeated demands and despite clear directions of this Court. The tender was not issued during pendency of represerrtations arbitrarily, but only after it became evident that Petitioners were unwilling to comply with the conditions precedent imposed by judicial orders. The plea that issuance of tender violates the subsisting license also cannot be accepted. Once t.he license stood terminated on lg.Og.2}23 and Petitioners failed to secure restoration by complying with conditi<lns imposed by this court, they cannot claim a vested right to continue till 2O35. : I\

i:._;::.J_--i:__,.::_. _- ..t . j'l-:.: ,- ,-, -,. ,. .,:-'.,,.-:-,-.:-, -l ':::::.+i;" tr. .il. t _ 't II I f'r

10. It is a settled principle that a writ court does not act as an appellate authority over contractual disputes, particularly where petitioner is in breach of contractual and statutory obligations. Petitioners seek equitable relief while remaining in default of admitted dues, which disentitles them to discretionary relief under Article 226. This Court therefore, finds no merit in . 'the Writ Petition and holds that Petitioners failed to establish " any enforceable legal right warranting interference. 1 1. The Writ . Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

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

SD/. C. DEEPIKA ASSISTANT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT' High Co the State of Telangana at To Hvderabad. IOUTI

2. Ohe CC to tvllSS. VLADI

3. One CC to SRI N.CHAN tvl E ER KHATOON, Advocate-[OP.UC] tinn sHrKAR, Advocate (oPUC)

4. Two CD CoPies SA GJP

HIGH COIJRT DATED:0!)/0112026

ORDER

WP.No.1 5200 of 2025 DISMISSING THE W.P 3 ?t JAtt 2026 q'3 {HES :'! ,.1 t , (

,:- * a WITHOUIT COSTS.