Md lvlahemood v. Telangana. State Road Transport

Petition under Article 226 ot the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particurarry one in the nature of writ of Mandamus ddctaring the impugned proceedings No.LC/785(70) t2o24-RM NZB dated 12-02.2025 as we as Manuar render Notification vide case No'c11122(8)12024-RM NZB dated o3.02.202s issued by the 2nd respondent calling up fresh tender in respect of Dor stall No.1 of lndira RTC Bus stand, Banswada, Kamaieddy District, which was constructed under DOT (Deposit, operate and rransfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, without reconsidering the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, and contrary to directions issued by this Honourable court in wp No.'1766/202s dated 24to1r2o2s, is highry ifiegar, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutiona l, 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 period for remaining period of five (5) years in respect of subject stall. 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 Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings No. LC/785(20)/2024-RIr/:NZB dated'-12.02.202 5 as well as the lr/lanual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1|122(B)12024-RM NZB dated 03.02.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent to extent of petitioner's case is concerned, by dirdcting the respondents to extend the ticense to the petitioner for remaining period of five (5) years from 01 .O1 .2025 onwards in respect of DOT Stall No_1 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. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between:

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Direbtor

2. The Regional Manager, IGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District AND lr/d IMahemogd, Sio Fazluddin aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o.H No.1-1-1 1/6/C/2/1, NGOs Colony.Banswada, Kahareddy District ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER 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 vacate the interim order dated 03.03.2025 in lA. No. 1 of 2025 in Wp. No. 4529 oI 2025 and pass such further orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED eUADRt Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY (SC FOR TGSRTC) W.P.No.4555 OF 2025 Between: Md.Salawoddin, S/o.Sharfuddin aged aboul 42 years, OcBusiness, Rt/o.H No.2-2-5511, lslampura, Banswada, Kamareddy District. ...PETITIONER AND 'l . Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director

2. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District. ...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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings No.LCl785(70)12O24- RMNZB dated12.02.2O25 as well as Manual Tender Notification vide Case No.C\|122(B)12024-RMNZB daledO3.O2.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent calling up fresh tender in respect of DOT Stall No.2 of lndira 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.1760/2025 dated24.O1 .2025, is highly 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 period for remaining period of five (5) years in respect of subject stall. 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 Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings No.LC/785(70)/2024-RMNZB dated12.O2.2025 as well as the lvlanual Tender Notification vide Case N).C1|122(8)12024-RMNZB dated03.02.2025 issued by the 2" respondent to extent of petitioner's case is concerned, by directing the respondents to extend the license to the petitroner for remaining period of five (5) years from 01.01.2025 onwards in respect of DOT Stall No.2 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. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Between:

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Qirector

2. The Regional Manager, fGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District. AND .PET|T|ONERS/RESPONDENTS Md.Salawoddin, S/o.Sharfuddin aged about 42 years, OcBusiness, R7o.H No.2-2-551 1, I slampura, Banswada, Kamareddy District. Petition under Section 15'l cpc prayins,r", ;::::lr:t::tll:J: the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to vacate the interim order dated 03.03.2025 in lA. No. 1 of 2025 in WP No. 4555 of 2025 and pass such further orders or order. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED OUADRT Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY (SC FOR TGSRTC) W.P.No.10076 OF 2025 Between: Md.9alawoddin, S/o.Sharfuddin aged about 42 years, Oc.Business, Rl/o.H No.2-2-55l1 , lslampura, Banswada, Kamareddy District. AND 1 2 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director The Regional {\rlanager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. ...PETITIONER

3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District. ...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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order No.C11122(M8)/2024-RM.NZB dated.18.03.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the bid of the petitioner for allotment of subject stall No.2, on the ground of failing in negotiations with tender committee, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary lo the terms and conditions of manual tender notification dated.03-02.2025, and set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents herein to allot subject stall to the petitioner immediately, by taking into consideration of his highest bid. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the DOT Stall No.2 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District in favour of the petitioner herein, immediately, taking into conslderation of his highest bid of the said stall, by suspending the impugned order No.Cll122(M8)/2024-RM.NZB dated.18.03.2025, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY (SC FOR TGSRTC) W.P.No.'|0092 OF 2025 Between: Md Mahemood, S/o Fazluddin, Aged about 51 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.H No.1- 1-11l6lCl2l1, NGOs Colony, Banswada, Kamareddy District. AND 1 Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director ...PETITIONER

2. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3. The Depot [\,4anager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District. ...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 Writ of Mandamus declaring the impugned order No.C1l122(M8y2024-RM.NZB dated.'18/03/2025 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the bid of the petitioner for allotment of subject stall No.1 , on the ground of failing in negotiations with tender committee, is highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unconstitutional, violation of principles of natural justice and also contrary to the terms and conditions of manual tender notification daled.03lO2l2025, set aside the same, and consequently direct the respondents herein to allot subject stall to the petitioner, immediately, by taking into consideiation of his highest bid. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the DOT Stall No.1 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District in favour of the petitioner herein, immediately, taking into consideration of his highest bid of the said stall, by suspending the impugned order No.C1l'122(MB)12024-RM:NZB dated. 1B.D32O2S issued by the 2nd respondent, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED eUADRI Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY (SC FOR TGSRTC) The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION N os.4529 4555 too76 and 1oo92 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: In vier,r, of the commonality of the issue and grievance, these Writ Petitions are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way of this common order' F or discussion, the facts in W'P'No 4529 of 2025 are taken as reference

2. Heard Mr.Mohd Moin Ahmed Quadri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N'sushman Reddy' learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC' Perused the record'

3. The facts of the case are that petitioner is leaseholder of DOT Stall No.1 at Indira RTC Bus Stand' Banswada' constructed under the DOT (Deposit, Operate and Transfer) scheme in 2OO7. The stall was allotted as part of a Government initiative to relocate road margin vendors' u'ith a promise of a 20 year lease. The petitioner, along with Jther beneficiaries, contributed 50% of the construction ) cost, and the APSRTC passed Resolution No 133/2OO7 i ., NBK. J ll/.P.n*o.4529 of 2025 and batch dated 24.1O.2OO7, confirming a 20 year license period. Initially, petitioner was granted lease for five 1'ears, which was extended and is valid till December 2024, uide aliotment letter dated 24.O2.2O2O. Seeking renewal for the remaining five years (till December 20291, petitioner and others made representations in 2024, offering to pay Sok increased rent. As there was no response, W.P.No.2757 512024 was filed, and this Court, uide order dated 03.1O.2024, directed respondents to consider the request. However, the 2"d respondent rejected the request uide proceedings dated 07 .O1 .2025, stating fresh tenders would be invited. Furth er, petitioner challenged this in W.P.No.1766 ol 2025, and bv order dated 24.01.2025, this Court drrected reconsideration and ordered that petitioner not be dispossessed. Despite this, respondent issued a Tender Notification dated 03.O2.2025 including the petitioner's sta1l, prompting W.P.No.3965 of 2O25. While that was pending, the 2n(r respondent again rejected the lease renew,al by proceedings dated 12.O2.2025. Hence, the 3 NBK. J llt P.No.4529 of2025 and bqtch present writ petition is filed challenging the rejection and tender process. 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on the lines of writ affidavit and contended that petitioner is willing to pay an additional 5O%o over the bid amount. Therefore, requested this Court to direct the respondents to accept the petitioner's bid upon enhancement of the bid amount by 5O%o.

5. Learned Government pleader for TGSRTC, in the counter affidavit, submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the dispute pertains to a purely contractual matter, and it is a settled legal position that r'vrit jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked in private disputes lacking public interest or statutory violation. The respondent Corporation floated a tender notification (Case No. C1/122(8)/2O24-RM:NZB, dated O3.O2.2O25) for leasing premises, ald the evaluation of such tenders is a commercial function where principles of equity and natural justice have limited application. It is I t 4 NBK, J ll.P.No.4 9 o.f 2025 and batch clarified that no final decision was taken to lease the subject property for 20 -vears, and petitioner has misinterpreted an internal proposal as eL concluded decision. While petitioner and others r,r'ere allowed to continue Llnder extended licenses once, the Corporation is not under any obligation to grant further extensions, and no promise or assurance ol a 20 -v-ear allotment was ever made. The initial preference granted to allottees on fair commercial terms applied onl,v after the first five-vear term and lapsed thereafter. The petitioner's representation seeking further extension q/as duly considered and rejected, and such rejection gives rise to a contractual dispute, not a public lar.r, remedy. The Corporation asserts that allotments must be made through opetl tender and not on a nomination basis, to ensure fairness and transparency. As no statutory or enforceable right exists in the petitioner's favor, the w'rit petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. After hearing both sides and going through the record, thrs Court finds that petitioner was originally given 5 NBK, J ll/.P-No.4529 of 2025 and batch the stall under the DOT scheme as part of a Government plan to relocate road margin vendors. It may be noted that petitioner paid 50% of the construction cost and was given a lease initially lor five ,years, which was later extended till December, 2024. Tlle APSRTC had also passed a resolution (No.133/2007) showing that the lease period would be for 2O years. The petitioner is now asking for renewal for the remaining five years and is even willing to pay 507o more rent. It ma,v be further noted that this Court had earlier, in two writ petitions, already directed respondent Corporation to consider the petitioner's request and not to dispossess him. In spite of this, the Corporation rejected the request again and included the stall in a new tender process, which \ appears unfair and not in line with the earlier promise. I Therefore, these u,rit petitions are liable to be disposed of. The rejection orders dated 12.O2.2025, 18.03.2025 and the inclusion of the stalls in the tender notification dated

03.O2.2025 are liable to be set aside.

7. Accordingly, the rejection orders dated 12.02.2025, 1A.O3.2O25 and the inclusion of the stalls in the tender 1 6 NBK' J lf.P.i\io.1529 of 2025 and hatch notification dated 03.02.2025 are set aside' These Writ Petitions are disposed of with a direction thal petitioner shall pay 507o more than the existing bid amount to the respondent Corporation within one week from the date of this order. Upon receipt of the said amount, the respondents are directed to consider renewing the petitioner's lease for the remaining live year period (up to December '2029\ on fair and reasonable terms' rvithin two weeks from the date of this order' There is no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any' shall To, stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/.A.V.S. oFpurvne PRASAD GISTRAR 1_ C ECTION OFFICER ),

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC-X-Road, Hyderabad,

2. The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District. 3. The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District 4. One CC to SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI, Advocate. IOPUC] 5. One CC to SRI N.SRUSHMAN REDDY, (SC FOR TGSRTC). [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK HIGH COURT DATED:2810712025 l i l I oC 1nE $ 7a /( ( e Jcu-u 05 Aue m * DF ,s ,rt-1.' -,- );/ COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 4529,4555, 10076 & 10092 OF 2OZs DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTIONS WITHOUT COSTS