Allowed

Shaik Mohammed Naveed v. the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC19 Jul 2024WP/4306/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the refusal of permission to transport construction material for a licensed dormitory business, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, sacrificing the respondents' technical objection regarding land alienation formalities, ordered the third respondent to grant the permission within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to issue permission to the petitioner to transport required material for construction within two months.

Shaik Mohammed Naveed Vs the Andhra Pradesh… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

APHC010078242024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

[3310]

¶6

SATURDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO: 4306 OF 2024

¶10

Between:

¶11

Shaik Mohammed Naveed

¶12

...PETITIONER

¶13

AND

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others

¶15

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶17

1.P GANGA RAMI REDDY

¶18

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶19

1.G RAMANA RAO (SC FOR ENDOWMENTS RAYALASEEMAREGION)

¶20

2.K VISWANATHAM (SC FOR APSRTC)

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER:-

¶23

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the

¶24

following relief:-

¶25

“to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not allowing the petitioner to transport the construction material to Sri Sailam for construction of Dormitory in the open space, granted license by 1^st respondent in favour of petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently direct the 3^rd respondent to issue permission to the petitioner to transport required material for construction of

¶26

¶27

Dormitory at the open space granted license by the 1^st respondent to the petitioner at Bus Station, Sri Sailam and pass such other order or orders … …. ”

¶28

The brief case of the petitioner is that the 1^st respondent issued

¶29

notification dated 30.05.2022 inviting tenders for grant of license, the open space 100’ x 40’ for doing Dormitory business in Sri Sailam Bus Station for a period of four years. The petitioner became successful bidder and executed the deed of license on 20.07.2022 for a period of five years commencing from 25.07.2022 to 24.07.2027. The petitioner can carry business of Dormitory only after construction of structure in the open space allotted to him. The 1^st respondent is collecting the license fee every month. The 2^nd respondent has requested the 3^rd respondent to grant permission to transport the construction material. The petitioner has got issued legal notice to the respondents on 06.12.2023 to allow him to transport the material. Having allowed others to transport construction material, the action of the 3^rd respondent in not granting permission to the petitioner to transport construction material to run Dormitory is discriminatory and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence, inaction of the respondents is questioned in this writ petition and requested to allow the same.

¶30

Heard Mr. P. Ganagarami Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Viswanatham, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. G. Ramana Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent.

¶31

During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that

¶32

the 2^nd respondent has requested the 3^rd respondent to grant permission to

¶33

¶34

transport the construction material and the petitioner has been paying license fee every month without running the Dormitory. But the 3^rd respondent did not grant permission to the petitioner to transport construction material to run Dormitory, which is highly illegal and arbitrary.

¶35

Per contra, respondents 1 and 2 have filed counter-affidavit by denying all material averments made in the writ affidavit and admitted the fact that the petitioner was the successful bidder for allotment of Dormitory business in the open space 100’ x 40’ at Srisalaim Bus station vide tender notification dated 30.05.2022. As per deed of license clauses entered by the licensee, the licensee has to run the business by erecting temporary structures at his own cost with the prior approval of the licensor duly obtaining the approval of Municipal Authorities/ Panchayat authorities for erecting temporary sheds/ structures at the vacant premises. The licensee has to run the business from 25.07.2022 to 24.07.2024 (five years). Since the open space was allotted, licence fee holiday of one month period from 25.07.2022 to 20.08.2022 was granted to the Licensee for repair and providing of stall from the date of entering into agreement. Obtaining permission from the 3^rd respondent was not under the purview of the Corporation. The granting license is subject to the granting of permission from the competent local body. The burden of obtaining permission is upon the licensee. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Per contra, 3^rd respondent filed counter-affidavit and mainly contended that the Commissioner of Endowments issued instruction to hand

¶37

¶38

over Ac. 4.00 cents the 3^rd respondent land to 2^nd respondent vide proceedings dated 15.06.1990 after receiving the tentative cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- from RTC officials pending finalization of alienation proposals. Accordingly, APSRTC paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the 3^rd respondent. Further the Board of Trustees in its meeting held on 21.07.1990 passed resolution and fixed the rate of the subject land allotted to the respondents 1 and 2, but the APSRTC authorities have not paid the balance cost of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the land already alienated, though it was accepted to pay the same as per Item No.29 of the meeting held on 12.01.1993 of Commissioner, Endowments Department, Hyderabad. The APSRTC authorities have issued reply dated 21.03.2013 that the balance amount will be paid soon after receiving of completion of alienation proceedings is finalized. Further the Board of Trustees in its meeting held on 02.09.2015 passed a resolution vide Item No.3 that “ As there is no specific orders on alienation of Ac. 4.00 cents land to APSRTC as on date, it is decided to allot land on lease basis instead of alienation ”. Accordingly the above proposal submitted to the Commissioner of Endowments dated 08.09.2015. While the matter stood thus, the APSRTC sent a letter to the office dated 17.01.2023 stating that license is awarded to the petitioner to run Dormitory business in open space for a period of 5 years from 25.07.2022 to 24.07.2027. The licensee has to erect temporary structure for construction of Dormitory and to run the business. Therefore, requested to arrange to issue necessary permissions for obtaining electrical, water pipe line and other required connections to commence Dormitory business for the

¶39

¶40

convenience of the pilgrims and also received a request letter from the petitioner on 19.12.2022 for material permission for construction of Dormitory at APSRTC Bus Station in Srisailam. As per Clause 2(k) in G.O.Ms.No.426, dated 09.11.2015, “ No person professing other than Hindusim as his religion is entitled to obtain lease or license either through tender-cum-public auction or otherwise”. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Perused the record.

¶42

It is an admitted fact that a license has been granted to the petitioner to run Dormitory to the petitioner and executed a deed of license on 20.07.2022 and accorded permission to run Dormitory business beside busses parking at Srisailam Bus Station on monthly license fee of Rs. 10,300/for a period of five years i.e from 25.07.2022 to 24.07.2027. The APSRTC addressed a letter to the 3^rd respondent with a request to recoomend for issue of final alienation orders duly adjusting the amount already paid i.e Rs.5,00,000/- towards land cost and balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be paid soon after receipt of alienation orders.

¶43

Therefore, the APSRTC is ready and willing to pay an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards balance amount soon after receipt of the alienation orders from the 3^rd respondent. Further, it is very clear that the petitioner is a successful bidder and his tenure commenced from 25.07.2022. Due to non granting permission to the petitioner to transport construction material to run

¶44

¶45

Dormitory, he incurred huge loss, though he paid license fee every month, which fact has been admitted by the respondents.

¶46

In reply affidavit, it is stated by the petitioner that he has completed erection of the shed and flooring, except the wall sheet, ceiling sheet and electrical fittings. The petitioner has completed the erection and has been paying the rent an amount of Rs. 10,300/- per month to the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, there is no justification on the part of the 3^rd respondent in not permitting the petitioner to transport the construction material to complete the remaining structure. The petitioner has placed the photographs of the shed under construction by the petitioner. It is sufficient that the petitioner has erected shed to the allot space for running Dormitory.

¶47

In view of the aforementioned circumstances, the petitioner is a successful bidder to run the Dormitory in the Bus Station premises at Srisaialam. Since the acts committed by the respondents, the petitioner has sustained huge loss and that the respondents are directed to issue necessary permission to the petitioner to transport required material for construction of dormitory at the open space as per license granted to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, it is a fit case to allow the writ petition as prayed for.

¶48

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, while directing the 3^rd respondent to issue permission to the petitioner to transport required material for construction of Dormitory at the open space allotted to him by the 1^st

¶49

¶50

respondent, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of a

¶51

copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶52

The miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand

¶53

closed.

¶54

______________________________ DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO

¶55

Date: 20.07.2024

¶56

Shaik Mohammed Naveed v. the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaik Mohammed Naveed v. the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Y.Salome Mercy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M. Phanidhara Prasad, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gogulapalli Mastan Bee, Vs . The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mulla Khadar Jilani, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Yasam Venkata Ramana Vs State of Ap

Garapati Veera Raghavulu Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Principal