The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly on the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent amount after completion of five year contract period as illegal unjust and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to forthwith with refund the security deposit amount of Rs17085000 to the petitioner with interest and pass such other order or orders as this honble court may deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the !A NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition; the High Court may be pleased for the reason started in the accompanying of this affidavit it is also prayed that this 7 hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to other order or orders as this hon'ble court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.V.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER 7_ HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA TI N .10 o 20 ORD ER: Heard Sri V.V. Anil Kumar, tearned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri R' Counsel for TGRTC Anurag, learned Standing appearing on behatf of the respondents' 2 e DTaver a s und r r: h "...to issue any Appropriate Writ or Order or Direction more particularly on the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Corporation in not refunding security deposit amount after completion of five year contract period, as illegal' unjust and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith wlth refund the security deposit amount of Rs'1'70'85'000/- to the petitioner with interest and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems flt and ProPer in the Circumstance of the case ' " 3, The case of the petitioner' in brief is that the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 21'06'2012 with the respondent corporation to display advertisements on 2 SN,J W.P.No.1O1O of 201a buses in the Hyderabad region for a period of five years. The agreement specified a monthly payment rate per bus, and the respondent corporation provided approximately 1340 buses. However, the respondent corporation failed to conduct regular censuses of buses as required by the agreement, and the petitioner was forced to pay for buses that were not available for advertising. Despite repeated representations, the respondent corporation did not provide accurate information on the number of available buses. The petitioner stopped paying for hire buses from April 2015 onwards, and the agreement expired in the month May

2017. The contract was extended for a short period, but the petitioner did not accept a further extension. However, after the expiry oF the contract period, the respondent corporation is not refunding the security deposit amount of Rs.1,70,85,000/-. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents which is in breach of agreement, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4, It is the specific case oF the petitioner that after the present writ petition had been filed on 02.01.2018, questioning the action of the respondent-corporation in not / .l sN.J w.P.No-lOlO of 2(,18 refunding the security deposit amount after completion of five year contract period as illegal, unjust and arbitrary with the specific plea that the petitioner is entitled for refund of the security deposit for an amount of Rs.1,70,85,000/- proceedings dated 27.0L 2018 had been issued to the petitioner behind the back of the petitioner without notice by the respondent Corporation calling upon the petitioner to clear outstanding dues of Rs.70,53,853/- stating that the said amount is outstanding due after forfeiting the petitioner security deposit.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner came to know about the said proceedings dated 27.O]l.2OlB only when the counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents herein in the present writ petition and the said proceedings had not been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner had no knowledge about the said proceedings. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

6. further submits that the same is issued as counter blast to petitioner approaching the Court by filing the present writ 4 sN,l W.P.No.1010 of 2018 petition and the same is in clear violation of principles of natural justice

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf bf the respondents however disputes the same and points out that the petitioner has a remedy under Clause 44 of the agreement dated 21.06.2012 entered into between the petitioner and the respondent - corporation which is operative for a period of five years with effect from 0I.06.2012 to 31.05.2017. He further submits tnat tne petitioner may be directed to submit a detailed representation against the order dated 27.01.2018 to the respondent No.1 putting forth the petitioner,s grievance as put-forth by the petitioner in the present writ petition and the respondent No.1 may be directed to consider the same in accordance to law, within a reasonable period. PERU ED THE RE CORD:

8. Clause (44) of the a o reement dated 21.06 .20L2 entered between the Detitioner and the resoondent - corDoratio n is extract ed here under: .1 sN,l w.P.No.10lO of 2016 "In case of any dispute or differences arising on the terms and conditions of the tender or contract as the case may be, the decision of the Managing Director, APSRTC, shall be final and binding on both the parties." .

9. This Court opines that the disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in the present writ petition as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel for respondent - corporation

10. A bare perusal of Clause 44 of the agreement (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that in case of any dispute or differences arising on the terms and conditions of the tender or contract as the case may be, the decision of the Managing Director, APSRTC, shall be final and binding on both the Parties.

11. Takino int consider tion: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned 6 SN,., W.P.No.1010 of 2018 a: Standing Counsel for TGRTC appearing on behalf of the respondents, The writ petation is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation putting forth the petitioner's grievance as put-forth in the present writ petition seeking refund of security deposit amount after completion of five years contract period to a tune of Rs.1,7O,8S,OOO/- and also seeking withdrawal of the letter dated 27.OL.zOtg issued to the petitioner herein calling upon the petitioner to clear outstanding dues of Rs.7O,53,BSg/- unilaterally within a period of two(2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and upon the respondent No.1 receiving the said detailed representation putting forth the petitioner grievance as put-forth in the present writ petition and all other legal pleas as are available to the petitioner under law before the respondent No.1 herein, the respondent No.1 upon receipt of the said representation of the petitioner is directed to consider the same in accordance to law after providing an opportunity of Y 7 SN,J w.P-No.101(, of 2018 l personal hearing to the petitioner in conformity with the principles of natural iustice and pass detailed speaking order within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter and communicate the decision on the subiect issue to the petitioner' However' there shal! be no order as to costs' Asa sequel, the miscellaneous petitions' if any' pending in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMA]L ASS NT REGIS SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Vice Chairman/Managing Director,.J9la.nOa,19 State Road Transport ' cd"rpiiliior, eus-B huuan 2. The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' -Mu-sheerabad Hyd e rabad Hyderabad Region

3. One CC to SRI V.V.ANIL KUMAR, Advocate lOPUCl 4. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, (SC FOR TSRTC) [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies. BSK BS HIGH COURT DATED:0 510312025 ORDER WP.No.1010 of 2018 CC TODAY $E STA r€' 1 18 t{AR 2Sl5 v l) ( q J o ,_ !), J:) DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS T 7 la'{ \