M.Gangadhar v. consequently direct the

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidayit filerJ in support of the petition, the High Court may Qg plgase{ to suqpend thq impugned Manual Tender Notification Yide 91e No.C1t122(B)l2024 RIvl:NZB dated. 0310212025 issued bv the 2nd respondenl to e)dent of petitione's case is concerned, by directing the respondents to extend the license !o the pretitioner for remaining period of five (5) years froin 01l01l2Q2p onwards in 5espect of DOT Stall No.16 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Bqqswada, K36areddv District, which was cqnstructed under DQT (Deposif, gnerete qn6 Tlahsfer) seheme, in the year, 2007, pending !ispgsal qf the Writ pQtition. Cgqnsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Coqnsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, SC FOR TSRTC {' .n Thg Cqurt made the following; ORDER HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITIO N No.4O5 9 0F 2025 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 oetitione r aoDroa ched the Court ekinq praver 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.C11122(8)/2024-RM:NZB dated 03.02'2025 issued by the 2nd respondent calling up fresh tender in respect of DOT Stall No.16 of Indira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed under 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 Hon'ble Court in WP No.L76L/2025 dated:24.01.2025, is highlv illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, and in violation oF 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 perlod for remaining period of five (5) years {- ,' 2 SN,J rvp 4059 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 hclder 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 w,as 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 lt,as valid till the end of December, 2.024. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is further entiiled for getting remaining five (5) years lease i.e., upto, December, 2029 as per reso ution No.133/2007, dated 24.10.2007, however, the said lease is; not being extended. Though this Court vide its order dated 24.Ct7.2025 in W.P.No.1761 of 2O?-5, direlcted the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for extension of lease for further period of five years up to I 3 SN,J wp 40592025 December, 2029 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of the said order and till such time, the respondents were directed not to dispossess the petitioner from the subject stall, the respondent-corporatio n issued Manual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1l122(8)/2O24-RM:NZB dated 03.02.2025 calling up fresh tender in respect of the DOT Stall No.16 of Indira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondent-co rpo ration, which is in clear violation of the orders of this Court, dated 24.O1.2025 passed in W.P.No.1761 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.LCl785(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.1761 of 2025 had been duly complied with and the request of the petitioner 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 .**--:--'' 4 SN,J vry 4059 2025 had contributed certain amounts for construction of shops and appropriate reasoned orders had been passed and Lo 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 consideration: 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.OL.2025 vide No.LCl785(70)/2O24-RM:NZB issued in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 24.01.2O25 passed an W.P.No.l76L ot 2025, The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings dated 07.OL.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 4059 2025 No.2 dated 07.OL-2O25 had been issued in pursuance to the petitioner approaching this Court by filing the present writ petition, a reasonable period of one (1) 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 igainst the order of the 2nd respondent dated

07.O1-.2O25. However, there shall be no order as to costs' As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in the Writ Petiti on shall glgo *glg closed. SD'-T. JAYASREE ANT REGISTRAR AS S //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Managing Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, HYderabad Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' Bus p. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC' Nizamabad' Nizamabad District 9. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot' Kamareddy Distrlct' 4. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI' Advocate TOPUCJ 5. OneCCto SRI RANURAG, SC FORTSRTC [OPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies BSB Ft- BS a CC TODAY ir{E sTA',-(' QA a) r-) i\{--. \q. \'-, 19 tql rl , n''1f, U(J . . ..,.1:'i. - ;-,- -..-;u' ' a ,i i,' / HIGH COURT DATED: 1310212025 ORDER WP.No.4059 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,R("b I Ya--<e \di\-' t