High Court · 2025

6. N. Mithun Rao, S/o N. Sridhar Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ- Business, Fl/o H.No.157/9, Plot No.3 Vahini Nagar Lane 1, Sikh Road, Secunderabad, Thirumalgiri, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 to arrange and allow open space of 10 X 10 beside controller room at Jadicharla Bus Station in violation of circular No.31/2017-OPD (M & C) dated 0211112017 under the guise of a compromise entered into between the Respondent No.6 and the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the Lok Adhalat in W.P.No.32934 ot 2018 to circumvent to the circular instructions of the Respondent No.2 in above stated circular particularly under point Vll(1) and other conditions therein, and interim directions of this Honble court in w.P.No.32934 of 2018 and W.P.No.15931 of 2o24and further in violation of article 14, 19(1XG) and 300-A of Constitution of lndia, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and abuse of the process of court. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the respondents not to permit/ allow any third party including 6th respondent from carrying any business in fast food by setting up a fast food stall or othenryise at Jadcherla Bus Station, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner: SRt p.RAMULU counsel for the Respondent No.l: Gp FoR TRANSPORT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRt R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC counsel for the Respondent No.6: sRt C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU The Court made the fottowing: ORDER ) !t I 1 I 1 I : i t i i THE HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH ORDER: The pefitioner charenges the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in allotting a 1ox10 feet space beside the controlrer room at Jadcherra Bus Station to a third party for a fast food star. This was done in vioration of circular No.3 r /2017-opD(M&c), date d o2.11.2077 and interim orders in W.p.No.3 2934 of 2[tg, and directions in w'p'No' 1593 1 0f 2024. The space was cleared without forowing proper procedure and given to a party chosen without any tender, ignoring the petitioner,s representation. The new stall has no kitchen and seils outsourced food, directly competing with petitioner's canteefl, which operates as per rules and pays a high license fee of Rs'4,52,22g/-- This action is unfair, illegal, and has caused serious loss to petitioner, violating principres of natural justice. 2' Heard Sri Ramulu, rearned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for TGsR?c for respondent Nos.2 to 5. perused the record. 3' Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 fired counter affidavit statitg that petitioner,s grievance is baseless. He further states that futitioner has no valid complaint, &S the lack of a kitchen i 2 NBK,J W.P. No.928 of 2025 n facility in the fast food stall does not violate an1' rule, especially when Respondent No.6 is willing to run the stall without kitchen. He claims that petitioner is only objecting to the allotment in order to eliminate business competition under false pretexts. It is stated that the allegation of being allotted the stall through a "pick and choose" method without a tender process is comp.letely false. It is further statecl that he was allotted the stall as the highest bidder in a proper tender process. The claim that Respondents 2 to 5 entered into a shady compromise with him is also denied as baseless and unsustainable. Therefore, it is stated that the rvrit petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, for respondents 2 to 5, filed a counter affidavit relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Joshl Technologies Interna,tlono,l Inc. V. tlnion of India & Others.rr which states that writ jurisdiction is not the right'*,ay to enforce contractual rights when there are other effective remedies available. It is stated that any disputes related to the petitioner's license agreement should be resolved in a Civil Court, not before this Court. Furthermore, Tender Clause 2l clearly allows 'ISRTC to grant licenses to multiple vendors for the '(zors) 7 scc728 I i t,... 7 .^, 3 N8K,J W.P. No.928 of 202S same type of business. The petitioner's agreement, specifically Clause 3O, confirms that the licensee cannot object to additional allotments made by TSRTC for similar businesses. Therefore, petitioner's claims go against the terms of the agreement he signed and must be rejected.

5. Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and material on record, this Court finds that fast food stall was allotted through a proper tender process. The petitioner's complaints about competition and the lack of a kitchen are not valid. It may be noted that petitioner agreed in the contract that TSRTC can give licenses to others for similar businesses. Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. \ To, /TRUE COPY// Sd/.U.SUDHA ASSISTANT OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI P.RAMULU, Advocate [OPUC] 2. one cc to SRI C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU, Advocate [oPUC] 3. One CC to SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC IOPUC] 4. Two ccs to Gp FOR TRANSPoRT, High court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

5. Two CD CoPies (t- BSR PMK HIGH COURT DATED: 0510812025 T=.t WP.No.92 of 2025 \i,L -'I ^! i(: { i Bl [i:[ zffi ( l, .Sr , 'r, l;, DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS (+ @lt[v{