WP/493/2026 of Pemmasani Ravi Kumar Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation on 7 January 2026

ORDER:

The petitioner runs a Private Hire Bus (PHB) service (Bus No' TS- 05-LjA-2499) under a I'lire Agreetnent dated 13.05.2024 rvith the respondent-TcsRTC, covering the route MIRYALAGUDA to DACHEPALLY with Vehicle Utilization (VU) of 337 krn per day' The agreelnent was valid up to 13.08.2025. Previously, the mother of the petitioner used to run the PHB service on the same route under an agreement dared 05.11 .2014. The PHB contract ended on 13.08.2025; horvever, the petitioner responded to the offer vide letter dated 29.08.2025 issued by the respondent-Corporation and expressed his willingness vide letter dated 03.0g.2025 to replace his old-model PVG (Pallevelugu) bus with a new- nlodel PalleveluguAJpgraded (Express) vehicle on the same route'

NBK, J 1.1 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent issued the impugne,d letter dated 04.1 I .2025 by changing the Vehicle Utilization (VU) fiorn :37 krn per da1,' to 421 km per day, and such increase/change in VU was not parl of his willirr-sness. Iiurther, such a chansc in VU from 337 to 421 krn Jrer day, is not in accordance u,ith the letter dated 02.06.2025; hence, this vrrit petition.

2. Heard Mr. P. Venkateshwer Rao. learned counscl lbr the petitioner, and the learnecl Standing Counsel lbr the respondent*Road Transport Corporation Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner, at the outset, rcfers to Letter No. P91359(10)|')-025-OPD-(P) dated 02.06.2025. issued by the Office of the Vice Chainnan & Managing Director, Operations (l'}t-G) f)epaftment, Hyderabad, wherein it is stated as fbllows: uln this regord, it is infornted thul, os per the existittg procedure, the ex,isting PHB owner is ullon,ed to replace the old-model PHB with a new-model similor-type husJ'or operution on lhe sflme route with the sunre Va."

4. Learn:d counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the above letter dated 02.06,.2025, would essentially conrend that the petitioner has expressed willingness to replace his old-model bus with a new-model bus on the same route and with the same Vu, as envisaged under the said letter. It is contended that the Corporation has unilaterally modified the VU from 337 to 421k,r, per day, which is contrary to the letter dated 02.06.2025. It is also contended that the Corporation, vide letter dated 29.0g.2025 (at page No. 18 of the writ material papers), permitted one Srnt. Bandari Latha to replacehe; existing old bus rvith a new bus and provide services on the same

NBK, J route with the same VU of 330 km per day. It is further contended that one Srnt. Lakkam Ahalya was also permitted vide letter dated L7.10.2025 (at page No. l9 of the writ material papers) to replace her old bus with a new bus and provide service on the same route with a slightly changed VU (from 322 km per day to -j36 km per duy). It is furthe'r contended that sirnilar dispensation. as shor.r'n in the case ol' other sinrilarlv situated service providers, may be shorvn in f'avour of the petitioner as rvel[, by considering his case to ply on the sarne route, MIRYALAGUDA - DACHEPALLY, with the san're VU of 337 km per day. as envisaged earlier underthe letter dated 02.06.2025, as the petitioner is u,illing to provide bus service with a new-model Pallevelugu bus.

5. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Arrurag, appearing for the respondent- Corporation, does not dispute the letter dated 02.06.2025, whereunder it was proposed to pennit replacement of old-rnodel buses with new-model buses on the sarl1e route with the sarne VU per day. I{e submits that the respondents tnay be clirected to consider the petitioner's request and pass appropriate orders, as was done in the case of other sirnilarly situated persons, in terms of the letter dated 02.06.2025.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it rnay be noted that vide the irnpugned letter dated 04.1 I .2025,the petitioner was permitted to provide bus service on the MIRYALAGUDA DACHEPALLY route. However, the only grievance of the petitioner is that the VU has been increased from 337 to 421 km per day, which is highly excessive and contrary to the letter dated 02.06.2025.

7. In that view of the matter, considering the limited nature of the grievance with regard to the change of VU from 337 to 421km per day, and

To, I PMK BS 'Qa wp_493_2026 NBK, J further considering the willingness of the petitioner to provide bus service on the said r,rute, this Court is inclined to direct the 3rd respondent-Regional Manager to consider the petitioner's request lvith regard to the VtJ, as per the respondt:nt-Corporation's letter ciatcd 02.06.2025, and pass appropriate orders withir two u,eeks trom the date ol'receipt of a coply of this order.

8. Accordinglv. the writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Miscellarreous petitions pending. if any, shall stand closed. SD/-AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN SI ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, lVlusheerabad, T.S.

2. The Exer;utive Director,HZ, TGSRTC, |\4GBS, at Hyderabad

3. The Regional fi/anager, TGSRTC, Nalgonda Region, at Nalgonda, T.S.

4. The Depr>t Manager, TGSRTC, lViryalaguda Bus Depot, at [\4iryalaguda, Nalgonder Dist

5. The Princ;ipal Secretary, State of Telangana, Transport Department, Secretari at, Hyderabad, T.S.

6. One CC lo SRI P VENKATESWAR RAO, Advocate [OPUCI

7. One CC lo SRI N.CHANDRASHEKAR, SC FOR TGSRTC [OPUC]

8. Two CCs to GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabard . [OUT] Two CD ()opies

HIGH COI"IRT DATED:07 10112026

ORDER

WP.No.493 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS .opluA vk Afr' ( 'ti.iE s 14 0 I ilAB 2028 *