Syed Farooq v. 1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Petition under Article 226 ot 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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Manual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1|122(B)12024-RM.NZB dated.03.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent calling up fresh tender in respect of DOT Stall No.12 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed wider DOT (Deposit, Operate and Transfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, without reconsidering the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, and contrary to directions issued by this Honorable Court in WP No.'179312025 daled.24.0'1.2025, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and in violation of principles of natural justice, and set aside the same to extent of petitioners case is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents herein to extend the license period for remaining period of five (5) years in respect of subject stall. h ,,t lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned [\4anual Tender Notification vide Case No.C11122(8\12024- RIV.NZB dated. 03.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent to extent of petitioners case is concerned, by directing the respondents to extend the license to the petitioner for remaining period of five (5) years from 01 .01 .2025 onwards in respect of DOT Stall No.'12 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed under DOT (Deposit, Operate and Transfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA RIT P TION .402 F 202 ORDER: Heard Sri Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R'Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The Detitioner ADDTOached the Cou rt see rno oraver as under: "...to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned Manual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1lr22(B)/2024-RM'.NZB dated 03'02'2025 issued by the 2nd respondent calllng up fresh tender in respect of DOT Stall No.12 of Indira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed under DOT (Deposit, Operate and Transfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, without reconsiderinq the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, and contrary to directions issued by this Hon'ble Court in WP No.1793/2025 dated:24.01.2025, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and in violation ol principles of natural justice, and set aside the same to extent of petitioner's case is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents herein to extend the license period for remaining period of five (5) years 2 SN,J wp 4025 2025 in respect of subject stall, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner is the lease holder of the shop of Indira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada and he is doing business at road margin of RTC Bus Stand. In the year, 2007, to remove the road margin vendors and for the expansion of road, the Government promised the petitioner to allot shops in the newly constructed building under DOT Scheme for a period of twenty (20) years, for which the petitioner agreed. After completion of construction of shops, initially, the petitioner was granted the lease For a period of five (5) years on a fair monthly rent and the said lease was extended from time to time, and was valid till the end of December, 2024. tt is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is further entitled for getting remaining five (5) years lease i.e., upto, December,2029 as per resolution No.133/2007, dated 24.70.2007, however, the said lease is not being extended. Though this Court vide its order dated 24.01.2025 in W.P.No.1793 of 2025, directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for extension of Iease for further period of five years up to i l t SN,J w,4025 2025 December, 2029 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date ofthesaidorderandtillsuchtime,therespondentswere directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject stall' the respondent-co rpo ratio n issued Manual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1l122(8) /2024-RM:NZB dated 03'02'2025 calling up fresh tender in respect of the DOT Stall No'12 of Indira RTC BusStand,Banswada,KamareddyDistrict'Aggrievedbythe said action of the respon d ent-co rpo ration, which is in clear violation of the orders of this Court, daled 24'Ol'2025 passed in W.P.No.1793'of 2025, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

4. Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf oF the respondents placed on record the proceedings dated 07.01.2025 vide No'Lc/785(70)/2024- RM:NZB oF the Regional Manager, Nizamabad i'e'' respondent No.2 herein and contends that the order of this Court dated 24.01.2025 passed in W.P'No 1793 ot 2025 had been duly complied with and the request of the petitloner for extension of lease period of DOT stalls for another five years in accordance to law had been reconsidered by the respondent corporation duly considering the specific plea of the petitioner that the petitioner :1. '. r 4 SN,J vp 4025 2025 had contributed certain amounts for construction of shops and appropriate reasoned orders had been passed and to ensure transparency and fairness, it is just and necessary that auction needs to be conducted and the request of the petitioner to run petitioner's business for a further period of five years, cannot be accepted. 5 Takinq into consid eration: a) The submissions made by the learned counsel dppearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation and, b) The proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 07.Ot.2025 vide No.LCl785(70)/2O24-RM:NZB issued in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 24.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.L793 of 2025, The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings dated 07.O1.2025 issued by the respondent No.2-Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad. In view of the fact as borne on record that the proceedings of the respondent 5 SN,J wp 4025 2025 No.2 dated 07.O1.2O25 had been issued in pursuance to the petitioner approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition, a reasonable period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the petitioner to pursue the petitioner's remedies' The respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner for a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the petitioner to pursue the remedies as are available to the petitioner'against the order of the 2nd respondent dated 07.OL.2O25. However, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, any pending, in the Writ Petition shall also stand closed' sorKSBErift+ttgSilxx //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To ;ffis$trutrffiffi ffi iwdr$ffi{.rttr* PSK./BSK (w- HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 310212025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.4025 oI 2025 1 1a SIArq q ) ) ) 1g ill$ M DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITH T COSTS \a 9 .y)