'I Thakur Thirumal v. State of Telarlgana

Petition under Article 226 ot lhe Cgnstitution 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 Tender Notice dated.17.04.2025 issued by the 2nd Reqpondent in inviting the tenders for allotment of shops in District Common Examination Board Complex, at Karimnagar is illegal ar:bitrary and againsl to the .,1 H Iti u H F * F .A t t; i E E Principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently direct the Respondents 2 lo 4 to handover the Shop No.s '1 , 3, 4, 5, (6, 7) and B to the Petitioners. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Secfion 151 ePC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tfe High Coprt may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in pursuance of Tender Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent in inviting the tender for allatment of qhops in District Qommon Examin4tion poard Complex, at Karimnagar pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.GlRl KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Court made the following; OBPER I' h F E F t li,: B R I THE HON'BLE SRJ JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 13204 of 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondents.

2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the tenants of subject shops. In the year 2003, 3'd respondent has allotted the subject shops to petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The said lease was for a period of five (5) years. As per the said allotment letter, petitioners and 2nd respondent have entered into rental deeds and petitioners have paid the security deposit. The period of lease was extended from time to time'

3. It is further contended by petitioners that in the year 201 l, R&B officials took up Road Widening Programme, due to which, the subject shops were affected. Therefore, 2nd and 3'd respondents assured the petitioners that on completion of road widening, after renovation of the shops, they would put the petitioners in possession and continue them. Therefore, on ,/ / 2 I{ L, J w.P.No 132O4 ot 2o2s the pronrise of 2nd and 3'd respondents, petitioners vacated'the subject shops. The subject shops were renor,'ated in the year 2021 ancl 2"d and 3'd respondents failed t<l keep up their promise. However, petitioners have submitted several represenlatior-rs to 2"d and 3'd respondents with a request to permit the petitioners to continue in the said shops. The same were nol considcrcd. While the rnatter stood thus, 2"d responclcnt has issued a tender notification dated

17.04.2025 calling for applications for allotraent ol' subject shops in 1he sultject cornplex i.e., District (lommon Examination Board, Karimnagar Cornplcx, Old High School Commercia[ Area, on lease. Last date for subrnission of applicatiorrs ls 30.04.2025 and auction is scheduled on

01.05.202-5. Thcrcfole, challenging thc said tencler notification dated 11 .04.2025, petitioners filed the present Writ petition.

4. Learned Government Pleader for School Education, on instructions. would submit that the subject lease was only for a period o1'five (5) years. Even then, they have continued further in the subject shops. However, petitioners are not in \ \ \ . : i. t:1.-*.; 3 KL, J W.P.No-t32Oa ot2O25 possession ofthe subject shops since last l2 years. Hence, they are not entitled for continuation in the subject shops. There is no error in issuing the impugned tender notice. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 5 As discussed supra, in the year 2003,3'd respondent has atlotted the subject shops to the petitioners on monthly rent. The said lease was for a period of five (5) years. It was expired long back.

6. lt is the specific contention of petitioners that on expiry of five (5) years lease period, they have continued further in the subject shops with the consent of2nd and 3'd respondents. It is also their specific contention that 2nd and 3'd respondents have extended the lease period and they have paid the admitted rent and deposited the security deposit. It is also the contention of petitioners that they have vacated the subject shops in the year 20ll itself since R & B Department initiated road widening programme. 2"d and 3'd respondents assured them that on renovation of the subject shops, they will permit the petitioners t5rcontinue in the said shops. / / 4 KL, J W P ',ro.13204 of 2025

1. It is also the specilic contention of 2"d and 3'd respondents that petitioners have vacated the subject shops long back and since then, they are not paying the rents. 2nd and 3'd respondents never assured the petitioners that on renovation of the subject shops, they will permit the petitioners to continue in the sr-rbject shops. Though the petitioners contended that there was oral assurance frrt6 2nd and 3'd responderrts. they failed to prove the same. 2nd and 3'd respondents are specifically contradicting thc said contcntion of petilioners that they have assured the petitroners that they will put tliern in the subject shops aller renovation. It is also the spccific contentior.r of 2"d and 3'd respondents that pctitioners are not in possession of the subject shops since last 12 years. I)etitioners have flled rental receipt.s till lhe year 2011 and tailed to file rental receipts therealter i.e., prior to 2021 .The scope of Judiciai Review under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of India in tender matters is very lirnited. l'he said principle was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Courl in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo \ -l I \ h 5 KL, J w.P.No.l3204 of2025 Limited and anotherr. In the said judgment, Apex Court held as under: "Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of powers of judicial review should pose to itselfthe following questions:- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: "the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with rclevant law could have reached." and (ii) Whethcr the public interest is affected? lf the answers to the above questions are in negative, then, there should bc no interference under Articlc

226."

8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered I t opinion that petitioners have failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned tender notice dated l'7.04.2025. Therefore, this Writ Petition is tiable to be dismissed and is I I acoordingly dismissed. ' lzozzy o scc +ot 6 KL, J w.P.No.13'.,o4 of 2025 a

9. Considering the fact that petitioners have paid security deposit and in view of the submission mado by the learned Governnrent Pleader for School Education that petilioners have to llay arrears of rent, liberty is granted to petitioners to subrnit a representation to 2"d respondent narrating the aforesaid facts with a request to retutrr the security deposit paid by them. Thereupon, 2nd respondent shall consider the said reprcsentation and also arrears of rent, if any, to be paid to 2''d and 3''i respondents, and dispose of the satne it.t accordance with law i.e., within four (4) weeks thereafter There shall be no order as [o costs. Nliscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed To, /ffRUE COPY// SD/-A. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 1ry,/ SECTIdN"OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI P.GlRl KRISHNA, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies. BSK' BS i i I r [. F i. [.. F i Ir F f l:. t t HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 CC TODAY c-. F 1.. FJ .$ Nb\ \\ lH + -r.l .tt' ORDER WP.No.13204 o12025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS Rx-