Sri Gangishetty Satyanarayana v. 1. The Managing Director

.....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 be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of wRlT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned vacant notice No.0'1/Gen (1) 2025-HSBD dated 15/Q1/2025 which is served on the petitioner on 22t0112025 at 06-00 PM requesting the petitioner to vacant the DoT Stall No.1 (G1) on 23t01t2o25, and trying to forcibly evict the petitioner from the above said shop, without considering the financial loss occurred for a period of 5 years because of non-removal of existing Structures i.e., temporary shops (telas) very in front of the Shop No 1 allotted to'the /' ,L petitioner and Shop No.2 allotted to one V. Venkat Reddy, discriminating the petitioner in considering on par with the V. Venkat Reddy allottee of Shop No-2 who is situated under similar circumstances and who has been granted the lease upto 3010412029, is illegal, arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia apart from violation of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the Stall No.Gl (Shop No.1) of DOT Shops at Husnabad dl 3010412029 in the interest of justice. I.A.NO:1 OF 2o2s 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 to stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned vacant Notice No.01/Gen ('1 ) 2025-HSBD dated 1510112025 and direct the respondents to not to interfere with the possession and to continue the petitioner to run the business in the Stall No.G1 (Shop No.1)of DOT Shops at Husnabad, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KANDI RAMCHANDRA REDOY Counsel for the Respondents : SRI U.SHANTHI BHUSHAN RAO The Court made the following ORDER f t_ ),/ HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No.239 2 0F 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Kandi Ramachandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri U.Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned standing counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitaoner approached the Court seekang prayer as under: "...to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned vacant notice No. 0UGen(1) 2025-HSBD dated t5/Ol/2025 which is served on the petitioner on 22/Ol/2025 at 06-00 PM requesting the petitioner to vacant the DOT Stall No. 1 (G1) on 23/0U2025 and trying to forcibly evict the petitioner from the above said shop wlthout considering the financial loss occurred for a period of 5 years because of non-removal of existing structures i.e., temporary shops (telas) very in front of the Shop No.1 allotted to the petitioner and Shop No.2 allotted to one V. Venkat Reddy, discriminating the petitioner in considering on par with the V.Venkat Reddy allottee of Shop No.2 who is situated under similar circumstances and who has been granted the lease up to 30/04/2029 is illegal arbitrary and violation of I I ') 2 Article 14 of Constitution of India apart from violation oF principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue in the Stall No.G1 (Shop No. 1) of DOT Shops at Husnabad till 30/04/2029 in the interest of justice and to pass....,,

3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had been appointed through tenders for running Kirana & General Store business in DOT Stall No.G-l at Husnabad bus station for a period of 20 years from 23.O1.2OO4 to 22.01.2fr24 on payment of license fee of Rs.1,51O/- per month and the petitioner even executed a deed of license with the respondent_ corporation to that effect and thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application and requested for extension for one (O1) more year from 23.01.2C.24 to ZZ.OL.ZO2S and the Regionat Manager, Karimnagar had extended the petitioner's license from 23.01.2024 to Z2.OL.2OZS. But, however the petitioner vide severat addressed to the respondent- representations corporation herein informed the officials of the respondent-corporation that the petitioner could not 3 sN,, conduct his business in totality for the period 2OO4 to 2008, since there were certain temporary shops existing in the front of petitioner's shop which led to the petitioner not being in a position to do business effectively for the period 2OO4 to 2OO8 and the petitioner, therefore requested for extension of the lease period, but however the same had not been considered and the impugned proceedings vide No.O1lGe.n( L) / 2O25-HSBD, dated 15.01.2025 had been issued by the 4th respondent requesting the petitioner to vacate the DOT Stall No.G-l on 23.OL-2O25. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-corporation referring to 29.01.2025 proceedings, dated No.O1l122(2)/2021-HSBD of the Depot Manager, Husnabad addressed to the Personnel Officer, TGSRTC, Karimnagar Region, submits that the possession of the shop had been taken over by the respondent- Y* 4 corporation on 23.01.2025 itself and the same is not in possession of the petitioner as on date.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behatf of the petitioner however disputes the said submission made by the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation and contends that the possession of DOT Stall No.G-1 at Husnabad Bus station is still with the petitioner as on date.

6. A bare perusal of the record indicates that in pursuance to the impugned proceedings, dated 15.O1.2025 issued by the 4th respondent, the petitioner had not put-forth his grievance as put-forth in the present Writ Petition to the respondent_corporation by way of representation as on date and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner admits that the petitioner had not represented the subject assue to the respondent-corporation and rushed to this Court challenging the impugned proceedings, dated 15.01.2025 issued by the Depot Manager, Husnabad to the petitioner herein. 5

7. This Court opines that the prayer as sought for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition cannot be granted, since admittedly there is no inactaon on the part of the respondents that a mandamus can be issued in the present circumstances, since the grievance of the petitioner had not been put-forth before the respondent-corporation in pursuance to the impugned proceedings, dated 15.O1.2025 issued by the 4th respondent even as on date.

8. Takinq into consideration:- i) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. ii) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation. iii) The contents of the impugned proceedings, dated 15.O1.2025 vide No.O1lGen(1)/2O25-HSBD of the Depot Manager, Husnabad issued to the petitioner. I ,r' 6 iv) The contents of the letter dated 29.01.2025 vide No.O1l122(2)/2021-HSBD of the Depot Manager, Husnabad addressed to the personnel Officer, TGSRTC, Karimnagar Region. The Writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to put-forth the petitioner,s grievance as put-forth in the present Wrat petition before the respondent-corporation by way of a detailed representation within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon receipt of the same, the respondent-corporation shall consider the same in accordance to law within a period of one (O1) week thereafter and duly communicate the decision on the said representation of the petitioner herein. The respondents are directed to maintain status-quo existang as on date in respect of DOT Stall No.G-1 at Husnabad Bus station till the aforesaid exercise as indicated as per the directions as issued as above within the time period as stipulated as above is initiated and concluded by passing of appropriate 7 orders by the respondent_corporation on the said representation to be filed by the petationer before the respondent corporation within the time period as stipulated as above. 9 With these above observations, the present Writ Petitaon is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, iF any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSI T NT REGISTRAR / To CTION OFFICER , ]liY:lrning Director,_Tetangana State Road Transport Corporation _ TSRTC Bus Bhavan RTC X R6ad nVo"LO"J, f"tlngana State. 2. The Resionat Manaoer.Kalrr"ol, C"oL" i'";;;.n, State Road Transport ^ Corporation -TSRTC Kanmnagar, Telanoana State 3. The Estare Officer and Divisioiat Manlg"";:'K;;;rg"r Division Tetangana State Road Transport Corporation _TSRiC Xrri.nnrg"r, Telangana State. 4. The Depot Manager, Tetangana strt" ri"rJi*ns[ort corporation _TSRTC MrniJiiiooiput District Tetansana Depot, Husnabro viilage 5,::::oro "no

5. One CC to SRt KANDT RAMCHIryDRA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCI 6. One cc to sRt u.sHANTHt BHUSiAt\i n;eo, eorl"rt" topucl 7. Two CD Copies w SA GJP F C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 ORDER WP.No.2392 of 2025 1 HE STA T€ q c (, 1 B ilAN ZO25 ( z * Dt: DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. i i d(''[ 4c &