The High Court · 2025

Sri.Annedi Srikanth Reddy, Hanuman Street, Peddapalli S/o.Venkat Reddy , Aged about 45 yrs, H.No.1-2-147, District -505172' ...PETrroNER .AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad Telangana State-500020

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, (ep byils Qft3irman, Bus ' : , Bhavah, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500020. . . .3, Telangana State Road Trinsport Corporation,.RqP by its Vice Chairman & : ', Manaling Director, Bus BhaVan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State- Secretary to Corporation, Bus Bhavan, OP bad, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500020. Karimnagar Division, Karimnagar District

4. D

6. The District, T 7. The Reg

8. Telangana The Depot Te[angana RTC Karimnagar Region Karimnagar TSRTC Karimnagar Region Karimnagar District, Manager, TSRTC Karimnagar Bus Station Karimnagar DiStrict, state- 5o5ool ...RESP'NDENTS ! 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 nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.7 issued Letter No.E5/437(02)l 2025, dated. 14.05.2025to implement the c-Tender Notification dated. 11.04.2025 against the Clause 29 of License Deed dated.31 .05.2022 in respect of Stall No.13 and issued Final Oider for Termination No.E5/122(61)12021-RM:KR,dated.24.03.2025 as illegal arbitrary, apart from being in violation of principles of natural, Justice and also violative of Articles 14, 19({ Xg), 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underEeetion:451 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in&rhpp'it of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to consider ttre nepre8erniticln dated.07. 10.2024, 10.03.2025 &, 15.04.2025 pending disposal of the main writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 4 . ,;,,D Petition under ry,diry 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in &rntio.t of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents No.2 to 6 to re-open the Stall No.13 pending disposal of the main writ petition. tA NO: 3 0F 2025 * :ll Petition under S*tion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in sJpport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent , No.7 not to finalize the e-Tender Notification dated. 11.04.2025 in resptct of the Stall No.13 pending disposal of the maih wiit petition. Gounselfor the Petitioner: M/s VLADIMEER KHATOON Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR TRANSPORT Counselfor the Respondent No. 2 to 8: SRI N CHANDRA SEKHAR (SC FOR i TSRTC) The Court made the following: ORDER ; I i I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAEAKA WRIT PETITION No.15649 of 2025 ORDER: The case of the petitioner, briefly as per the writ affidavit, is that the respondent-Corporation issued e-tender notification No.E5l437(2)12021- RM: KRMR, dated 04.08.2021 inviting tenders for Pucca Shop bearing No.13 admeasuring 1344 sq.ft for doing Fast Food Business in Karimnagar Bus Station under Karimnagar-l Depot for a period of 5 years and in response to e-tender notification, the petitioner submitted his candidature and participated in the tender process, evaluated online on 28.08.2021, and stood successful by offering Rs.3,03,000/- per month and has agreed to pay Rs.3,15,000/-per month during negotiations, towards license fee, excluding water and electricity charges, maintenance charges, GST and any other taxes levied by the Corporation. It is stated that respondent No.5- Divisional Manager, TSRTC has accepted the offer made by the petitioner, and communicated its acceptance vide letter dated 29.12.2021, pursuant to which a Deed of Licence dated 31.05.2002 was entered into between the petitioner and the corporation. It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of Deed Licence, the total period of licence is for 5 years, with monthly license fee of Rs.3,15,000/- for first two years exclusive of electricity, water, maintenance charges, GST etc., to be paid in advance on or before lOth day of current month, and the licence fee shall be enhanced by 5Yo, tTyo,'\s% in 3'd , 4th and 5ft yeil respectively. In summary, the license fee payable by the petitioner was as under: i) Rs.3,15,000/- per month from 01.03 .2022 to 28.02-2024. ii) Rs.3.30,750/- per month from 01.03.2024 to 28-02-2025- iii) Rs.3,53 ,8251- per month from 01.03 .2025 to 28-02-2O26. iv) Rs.4,18,399r- per month from 01.03.2026 to 28.02.2027. _ I -.- 2 wp_15649-202 5 NBK I

1.1 It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.7- Regional Manager issued a Final Order dated 24.03.2025 terminating his license for the said Shop, and also issued a letter dated 14.05.2025 to impiement the e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 against Clause 29 of License Deed dated 31.05.2022. The petitioner challenges the impugned Final Order dated 24.03.2025 and the e-Tender Notification dated

11.04.2025 as illegal and arbitrary.

2. Heard Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, leamed counsel for the petitioner, leamed Government Pleader for Transport Department for respondent No.l and Sri N. Chandra Shekhar, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8. Perused the record.

3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner participated in the tender process and offered a substantial license fee of Rs.3,15,000 per month, anticipating good sales and profits to sustain livelihood. However, the sales fell signihcantly short of expectations, resulting in financial difficulties. Due to election-related disruptions, the petitioner was unable to pay the license fee on time, but nonetheless paid Rs. 2,30,000 on 09.10.2023, Rs. 4,00,000 on 16.10.2023, and an additional Rs. 40,000, totaling Rs. 6,70,000, and submitted a representation to respondent No.6 promising to clear the remaining dues by 10.11.2023. Subsequently, the petitioner paid an additional Rs. 3,00,000 on 10.11.2023, making the total payments Rs. 9,70,000. Despite this, respondent No.6 issued a Show Cause notice dated 08.11.2023113.11.2023 claiming arrears from August to November 2023 without acknowledging t 3 wp-15549-2025 the payments made. Ignoring the petitioner's representation dated 13.11.2023, respondent No.6 issued a final termination order on 27.12.2023, which was received the same day. The petitioner submiued another representation citing ill health causing delay and assured payment by 3'1 .01.2024, but this was disregarded. Consequently, the petitioner was denied the right to continue business, leading to significant losses. Previously, a similar termination order was challenged through W.P. No. 35176 of 2023, where the Court granted time to pay arrears; however, due to ongoing financial crisis, the petitioner failed to pay license fees from January to March 2024, resulting in a show cause notice dated 19.03.2024. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 8741 of 2024 challenging this notice, and the Court directed the petitioner to give an undertaking and pay dues within eight weeks while restraining coercive action in the meantime. Despite full payment acknowledged by respondent No.6 on 10.09.2024 without break- up details, the petitioner was barred from paying subsequent monthly fees unless disputed amounts of Rs. 8,34,466 were cleared. The petitioner thus prays for the quashing of letter No. E5l437 (02)12025 dated 14.05.2025 issued by respondent No.7 and seeks enforcement of the e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 under Clause 29 of the License Deed dated

31.05.2022 concerning Stall No. 13, asserting that the termination orders and refusals to accept payments are unjust and arbitrary, causing unwarranted hardship. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that as per Clause 6(d)

4. of the license deed, the licensee is liable to pay penal interest at 36Yo per annum for each day of delay beyond the 10th of the month, which is the \ \ i I : ''" \.'-*- \ - 4 wp-15649-2025 NBKI stipulated deadline for payment of the monthly license fee. Further, Clause 28(a)(i) of the agreement explicitly provides for termination of the license with one month's notice if the licensee defaults in payment for three consecutive months or three times in a calendar yatr, while Clause 28(b)(viii) permits termination for any other breach of the agreement. The petitioner has repeatedly violated these provisions. The respondents deny that the petitioner has complied with payment obligations, asserting that the petitioner defaulted multiple times since 2022 despite several notices, extensions, and court directions. The petitioner failed to adhere to any payment schedule or court-mandated undertakings and continued to default despite repeated warnings, compelling the respondents to issue a final termination notice dated 28.09.2024. It is further denied that the petitioner complied with orders passed in W.P. No. 28609 of 2024 and instead defaulted in license fee payments from October 2024 to January 2025, leading to alrears totaling Rs. 33,67,772/- at the time of the final termination order dated 24.03.2025. The petitioner vacated Stall No.13 in March 2025, and consequently, a final e-tender notification dated 11.04.2025 was issued for licensing the now-vacant stalls, including Stall No.13. The tender process concluded on 06.06.2025, a fresh tender was awarded for Stall No.13, negotiations were completed, and the file is currently under process for issuance of proceedings. Thus, the respondents submit that the petitioner's grievances are unsustainable and untenable, and the present writ petition lacks merit and deserves dismissal.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the contractual obligation between the parties stipulates that the,petitioner must pay Rs. 3,15,000 per month towards the 5 w_t5649.2025 NBK, J license fee, apart from other charges, by the 10th of every month. However, the impugned Final Order of termination dated 24.03.2025, which is supported by the record, shows that the petitioner defaulted on payments from January 2024 to March 2024 (3 months), from JuIy 2024 to September 2024 (3 months), and again from October 2024 to January 2025 (4 months). The petitioner paid the dues upon directions of this Court, in instalments.

6. It is to be noted that this Court, under Article 226, cawrot be expected to delve into contractual matters or tender notifications unless there is illegality or procedural violation. In the instant case, the petitioner pleads financial difficulties and non-operation of the business as reasons for the non-payment of the license fee on time. However, strangely, the petitioner paid approximately Rs. 9,70,000 in October 2023 and Rs. 3,00,000 in November 2023, despite alleging a slowdown in business. Further, the petitioner admittedly delayed payments continuously from January 2024 to January 2025. Amounts were cleared only after being outstanding for a long period. Moreover, it is not known whether penal interest has been levied on him as per the contract.

7. Be that as it may, it is the specific and indisputable ground taken by the respondent authority in the impugned Order dated 24.03.2025, which reads as follows: "Thus, you have habituated to defaulter for payment of monthly license fee regularly and approaching the Hon'ble High Court, Hyderabad by filing WPs. As on date you have filed WPs on 4 times by non paying the monthly license fee and not being cleared L l$ 6 wp -1s649 _2025 NBKI rental dues which are exceeding Security Deposit Further, you have submitted a 06.02.2025 requesting to submit detailed outstanding statement. Accordingly, a detailed outstanding due statement audited by the accounts Offcer, Karimnagar was submitted to you on 12.03.2025 wath a due amount of Rs.33,67,772l- up to March 2025 and the same was acknoirledged by you. But not paid due amount"

7.1 The above-extracted portion of the impugned Termination order shows that the petitioner has defaulted four times and has also not cleared the rental dues, which exceed the Security Deposit. The petitioner has fallen into arrears amounting to Rs. 33,67,772uptoMarch2025.

8. Delaying payments due under contractual obligation and approaching this court to obtain a favorable order based on sympathetic consideration cannot bl accepted as a matter of routine. A party that approaches the court and obtains relief on sympathetic grounds cannot expect similar consideration every time by becoming a repeated defaulter in contractual obligations and taking the Court fora ride.

9. The impugned Final order of termination shows that the petitioner is in arrears of over Rs.33 lakhs, which is ten times the monthly license fee. His contract was from 2o2r to 2025 - The tactic adopted by the petitioner- voluntarily delaying the license fee on unsubstantiated grounds of a business slowdown or otherwise, seeking unlimited extensions, and repeatedly filing petitions before this court while continuing to default- is, in fact, a veiled attempt to hold on to the contract by staying in arrears. 7 wp_15649_2025 NBKI This approach would literally disable the authorities from re-notifying the premises for tender and deprive all eligible contractors of a fair opportunity. This Court takes serious note of such dilatory tactics that deprive the State or its instrumentalities of contractually obligated payments. Therefore, this Court does not f,rnd any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order of contract termination dated 24.03.2025 and in the re-notification of the tender vide letter dated 14.05-2025-

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The respondent authority is at liberty to recover the license fee and other charges due from the petitioner in accordance with law. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed- \ To, Sd/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY ANT REGISTRAR 'r-".".'$' '.i 'l'r: '"t //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER

1. ONE CCffiJ€RI VLADIMEER KHATOON, AdVOCAtC 2. Two CCs&, GP FOR TRANSPORT, High Cc,urt for the State of Telangana. Iourl ' :' 3. One CC tG€Rl N. CHANDRA SEKHAR (SC FOR TSRTC), Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies cI MMT PMK q{k i I J I I i ! ' ,! HIGH COURT DATED i2310712025 ORDER W.P.No.15649 of 2025 r'il.': t.t4;. .' ' t/-.t ,)\. c O 2 0 EEC 2{ffi )' x t: !:,1 I n.'-i!': r: ,a_ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT GOSTS Rtr L \v L{