The High Court · 2025

SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: PE ON No. 539 2o.25 . This Writ petition, Iiled seeking the following relief: under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is 2 mmm*m$g Heard Sri p. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing for tlre Charrdra Sekhar, learned Staading Counsel for Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of petitioner arrd Sri N. Tela1g212 State Road respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the Tender Notification dated 14. 10.2019, the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 on 17.O3.2O2O, for operating the his bus bearing No.TS 26 T 666g (Express) on route, Thorrur_Hyderabad. agreement was for a period of four years, commencing trom 12.O3.2O2O to L1.03.2024 , with a provision for extension of the said period, subject to Ittness of the vehicle. Likewise, another agreement dated 11.o3.2o2o. was The said I -i i 7 PK' J w.P.No.539 of 2025 executed for operatlng another bus bearing No'TS 26 T 667O (Express)' on route, Thorrur-Jagadgirigutta Accordingly' the petitioner was operating his buses satisfactorily on the ailotted route Ho*t"tt' both of his agreements was arbitrarily terminated by respondent No'2 vide orders dated 26.O4'2022' ortthe alleged ground that the petitioner had submitted a fake insurance policy documents in respect of the said buses' Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner frled W P Nos 24429 atd' 24496 of 2022 before this Court, which were ailowed' vide orders dated 1 1'09'2O23' setting aside the termination orders dated 26 'O4 '2022 issued by respondent No'2' As such, the respondents were duty-bound to permit the petitioner to operate the buses on the allotted route till the expiry of the agreement period. However, tn spite of his requests, thc petitioner was neither permitted to operate the buses nor was he provided with any information As such, the Petitioner submitted his rePresentation dated 01.08.2024, seeking implementation of the aforesaid orders of this Court' Thereafter' respondent No.2 issued the impugned No-Objection Certificates dated

25.09.2024, in respect of the two buses' It was further submitted that after the issualce of the impugned 4. NOCs, respondent No.5 addressed a letter to respondent No'2 on 13.17.2024, seeking clarification on the validity of agreement period' as to whether the said agreements remained valid until I I 'O3 2024 ot fk" 3 w P'N"'ssg tJ;:; vide letter dated i vas contended that the sz , No.s that trr. p.titro.r..2o 26-04.2022. conseollenrh, ,-:r r r1-2024' respondent No.2 informed .."oo.ro..r,'"ntly' "" Peuuoner's buses were utilized up to 26'04'2022, as such. ,"- ^^- tnt agreements were valid from 12.O3.2O2O to 26.o4.2o22onry. It rn' clarification is erroneous and contrary to the orders of this court o",.,'o \-uurt dated 17'og'2o23' whereby, the termination orders were ".- -:^ set aside' and in spite of the same' respondent No.2 himself oro ,o, I permit the petitioner to operate the buses in comp.liance of the orders of this Court. It was also submitted that respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 23.04.2024, arbitrarily clarifying that the valictity of agreernents in respect of both the buses had expired on 11 03'2024' and that the petitioner is not entitled for further extension of two yea-rs' In the said letter, it was arso stated that the petitioner was instructed to produce his buses for fitness before the vehicle Inspection Committee. However, no such communication was ever received by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made a liesh representation to respondent No.2 on 12.11.2024, requesting to issue the No_Objection certificate w'e'f' 11.03.2 o24, i.e., actuar expiry of the agreements, or from the date of issuance of such No-Objection Certificate. However, no action has been taken thereon so far, and no NOC has been issued in respect of the two buses. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessa-ry orders in the present writ petition. f 6 PK, J w.P No $9 of 2025 learned Standing Counsel submitted that the NOCs issued by respondent No.2 do not warrant interference of this Court' and thus' it was prayed to dismiss the prescnt writ petition' 7 . Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties' this Court deems it prohtable to extract the contents of in respect of two buses' which read the two NOCs dated 25 'Og '2[24issued as under (i) NoC No'T1/359(19)/2019-RM:WL dated 25 'o9 '2024 tr{:h:'{ft [#[:E:=iiTlf i ;i;,;;x t,,let'.:LT Agreement was valrd Iro 'z:#r-{3;q'#}h1tfl - i:J. }tX',i, 3'ii oTl?,T; -**+"r:***,-*,*z*'gf+**t**+';"*lx i"tlii"# nt t;n-able to operate the Lrus' Hence. the "NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE" is issued' accordinglY ' " (ii) NOC No.Tl /359(23)/2019-RM:WL dated 25'09 '2024 ' "SriMogullaAshokGoud.S/o.Krishnamurthy.R/oH.No.l6-122. M ain Road. Thorru r''ii"i'i" u"tta' istric t' Ter a n sa n;,:flt*:l;ti.ti i"i.'o*."t*""' with the Comoration for operalrng TS26T-6670(EXP) t""' i" " t"iti" ruorinun .lecADolzuGUTtA bv with TGSRTC and Agreement was Thorrur Depot "t'a"ttiritl"stt"'oe 1-2'c,3 2o2o to rr'o3'2o24 ' ;;;;- was terminated * " t'iZ'ii Loi"t sarne setting ""ia" tttt Ho'iutt- uigh court allowed the altlii os2o23 in wP'No 24 42912022 and he has The Agreement of the Hire Bus bearing-No 'TS26T-6670(EXP) k 7 W.p.No.s3g ofP;; J:f"1,"13 thc "NO OBJECTION ;y#rIoNrcERrrFrcArE, due to nnanc ial CERTIFICATE' iS iSSUCd. requested to probiems he ' Hence, accordingl_v. "

8. From a bare reading of the above, it ir t evident that the Nocs are vague without any mention with regard to th. period to which they pertain, a',d they rack clarity as to whether ,n."ot"'n" **. issued for the period after the expiry of agreements (rr.o3.2o24)"., were they confined to the period after date of te rmrnation (26.O4.2022) ,".. it is to be noted that the respondents fired a cotnter affidavit the Nocs are rimited "r,o', to the period after the termination o, .o.,"'"* rments, i.e., 26.O4.2022_ However, as can be seen from the record, the orders dated 26.04.2022, terminating the agreements of the petitioner, were set aside by this court vide orders dated 11.0g.2O23 in W.p.Nos.24 429 and 24496 of 2022. As such, once the termination orders were set aside, the .validity of the agreement period was deemed to have been restored. Hence, the respondents were obligated to permit the petitioner to operate the buses until the expiry of the agreements, i.e., 11.03.2024. As such, the view taken by the respondents in their counter af'davit goes against the orders of this Court dated 1 t.Og .2023.

9. FUfthef, according to the respondents, in cornpliance wirh the said this Court dated 11O9'2O23' vide proceedings orders of I PK, J of 2025 W.P.No'539 both dated and T1/359(23)/2019-RM:WL Nos.T1/359(19)/2019-RM:WL ll.l2'2z23'the petitioner was instrucLed to produce the vehicles before the Vehicle lnspection Committee for assessrnent of their fitness and operation in the exis[ng routes' but the petitioner did not heed to the said instrucdons' However' as can be seen from the record' no action was taken against the petitioner in spite of the alieged failure of the petitioner to produce the vehicles for inspection' Hence' it carr be concluded that the agreements' which have been restored vide orders of this Court dated 24496 of 2022 ' were deemed to be still tl.og.2o23in W'P'Nos'24 +ZS ^oa in subsistence until their natural expiry on ll 'O3'2O24 ' As such' the petitioner is entitled for NOCs for the period with effect from the date of cxpiry of the agreement 'i'e'' Ll 'O3'2O24 ' 10. In view of the peculiar facts ald circumstances of the case' the impugned NOCs dated 25'O9'2024' are unsustainable' a-nd are therefore' liable to be set aside' 1 1. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned No-Objection Certifrcates vide No'T1/359(19)/20l9-RM:WL and T /359(231/20 19-RM:WL' both dated 25'Og'2O24' issued bv respondent No.2 and the matter is remanded back to respondent No 2 for fresh consideration and issuance of proper No-Objection Certihcates' duly specifying the applicable period' strictly in accordance with the lr.*.*. r' I 7 I 9 observadons made hereil ". *o.0,"^,L-:',*ott of rhis order, four (04) weeks from ,n'o"'' communicate.opi." ,r,.."lrlJ.i.;::".or particularlv, in terms as possible' preferably with a copv or th * " *" ,rn.r5fr{ of paragraph 9 in a period of is order, and Miscellaleous appli stand closed. No costs. ications' if any' pending in this writ petition, shall Sd/- K. SREE RAMA MURTHY DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII :\.r SECTIod6FFIcER The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Warangal Region, at Warangal, T.S. The Depot Manager, Thorrur Bus Depot, at Thorrur, Mahaboobabad District, T,S. The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, State of Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad. The District Tiansport Of{icer, Mahaboobabad at ttrlahaboobabad. One CC to Sri P Venkateswar Rao Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Chandra Sekhar N, SC for TSRTC Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP For Transport,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD Copies To, 1 2 a 4

5. b. 7. 8. L MBC s I I HrcH cotrhr ! PK,J DATED: OltOBtzO2S k oR 1HE S i., .:\ c, c () 05 rue 2W r)c. :( ./)/ ORDER WP.No.539 of 2025 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS C9 (,i's k,