Dismissed

D.Shanteshwar v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC6 Dec 2021WP/19451/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the cancellation of his stall allotment. The court held that the petitioner's failure to deposit the required security amount, leading to the cancellation, was his own fault, finding no infirmity in the impugned action. It directed the petitioner to seek a refund of the EMD via a representation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach respondents for refund of EMD without forfeiture; Writ Petition dismissed.

D.Shanteshwar Vs The Telangana State Road… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶5

wRtT PETITION NO.^'19451 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

D.shanteshwar, S/o.Havagiri Rao, aged about 48^years, Occ. Contractor,^Rl/o. H.No .16-6-641, Azam^pura, Chanchalguda, Saidabad,^{Hyderabad, Telangana} state

¶8

...PETrroNER

¶9

AND '1 . The Telangana State Road Transport Corporatlon, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶10

The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Ranga^{Reddy Region, MGBS,Hyd^erabad,-T'S.} ...RESPONDENTS

¶11

Petition under Article 226 ol the^Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Court maybe pleased} to issue a Writ, more^particularly one in the^{nature of Writof Mandamusor anyother} appropriate Writ or Writs, Order or direction^{declaringthe actionof the Respondent} No.2 in cancelling the^petitioner allotment^{of Stall No.37 at MGBS, Hyderabadin} pursuance of e-Tender Notification No. P4l122(01y2020-RR dt'18/06/2020^is bad arbitrary illegal and against to the^principles of^{natural justice and consequently} direct the respondents to allot Stall No.37^{at MGBS, Hyderabad to the petitioner.}

¶12

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶13

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct} the respondents not to consider/open^{the tenders in so far Stall No.37 at MGBS'} Hyderabad in^pursuance of e-Tender^{Notification No. P41122(02)12020'RR'} dt.1611112020 issued by 2nd respondent^herein.

¶14

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶15

Between:

¶16

'1 . The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,^{Hyderabad, T.S,}

¶17

1. The Redional Manager,^{TSRTC,RangaReddy Region, MGBS, Hyderabad'T.S.}

¶18

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

AND

¶20

¶21

D.Shanteshwar, S/o.Havagiri Rao, aged^{about 48 years, Occ. Contractor, R/o} H.No .16-6-641 Azam^pula, Chanchalguda,^{Saidabad,Hyderabad, Telangana} state

¶22

...REspoNDENTMRtr^pETtrtoNER

¶23

Petition under^I iection 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in su )port of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate} the interim order^granl )d on 05.11.2020^{in WP No.19451/2020.}

¶24

Counsel for the Petiti^rner: SRI^{P, VENKATESWAR RAO}

¶25

Counsel for the Resp rndents: SRI N. PRAVEEN^{REDDY, S'C. FOR T.S.R.T.C.}

¶26

The Court made the f^,llowing: ORDER

¶27

----r

¶28

THE HON,BLE^{SRI JUSTICET,VINODKUMAR}

¶29

WRIT PETITION^{No'19451 of 2020}

¶30

ORDER:

¶31

This Writ^{Petitionis filed questioning the action of the} Znd respondent^{in cancellinqthe allotment of Stall No'37at MGBS'} Hyderabad,^{in pursuance of e-Tender NotiflcationNo'P4/122(01)/2020-} RR, dated^{18,06.2020, grantedin favour of the petitioner'}

¶32

Heard^{learned counsel for the petitionerand Sri N'PraveenReddy'} learned Standing^{Counselappearing for the respondents'}

¶33

The^{petitioner contends that' pursuant to the e-Tender notlfication} issued by^{the respondents,on 18'06'2020'he had bid for grant of licence} in respect^{of Stall No 37 for runnlngthe businessof 'Tea' Coffeeand} Bakery'in^{the 2ndrespondentBus Station;that the licence grantedto the} licencee^{earlier for the said shop was valid till 25 08'2020; that the} petitioner was^{to be given possessionof the said shop only thereafter;} and that,^{in the meantime, even beforethe said shop was vacatedand} possession thereof^{was given to the petitioner'the respondentshave} taken steps^{to cancelthe allotment grantingin favour of the petitionerfor} a^{period of fiveYears'Hence,the PresentWrit Petition'}

¶34

When the^{matterwas listed'for hearing'on} 05.11.2020,^the learned^{Standing Counsel sought time for getting} instructions,^and therefore,^{the matter was adjournedto 12'11'2020'and till that date' this} Court directed^{the respondentsnot to finalize the tendersTo vacate the} said interim^{direction, the respondents have flled I'A'No'2of 2020 along} with a^{cou nter-affidavit'}

¶35

¶36

While dt nying the averments made by the^petitioner, it is stated, in the said count( r-affidavit, that the tender submitted by the^petitioner was approved on a monthly rent of Rs.1,63,109/- and that the^petitioner was lssued with all rtment letter dated 22.07.2020, whereunder the^petitioner was required t r make deposit of Rs.12,99,894/- towards security deposil, equivalent to : ix highest months licence fee and after adjusting the EIYD amount of F;.4,65,000/-, the balance security deposit amount of Rs.9,98,003/- vas required to be deposited by the^petitioner !/ithin seven days of receipl of allotment letter or within 15 days from the date of^issue of the allotmer t letter, whichever is earlier.

¶37

The rer londents would further contend that the allotment letter, dated22.07.2^)20, was sent to the^petitioner at the address mentionedⁱⁿ the e-tender brm by registered^post with acknowledgment due, vide RN158090722 IN, on 30.07.2020, and the same was returned by the postal authori ies on 03.08.2020 with an endorsemenl "Item returnel addressee lel without instructions" and the said^reglstered letter^was returned back lo the 2nd respondent on 06.08.2020. Fufther, it is also contended th rt the^petitioner, knowing lully well that he has^been declared as s, ccessful tenderer and was required to make^payment, did not approach :he respondents and make^good the deficit security deposit amount, as result of which, the allotment rnade in favour of the petitio ne r, sto rd cancelled.

¶38

Noted he submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶39

Thougl the petitioner contended initially oF non-receipt of the allotment lett, r, which is stated to have been lssued by the respondents,

¶40

¶41

a^perusal oF the original file, as produced before this Court, clearly shows that the said allotment letter was sent to the petitioner under registered post with acknowledgment due and the same havlng been returned by the postal authorities by making the above stated endorsement. The registered cover along with its acknowledgment and the postal tracking report are also forming part of the original record. In view of the same, it is not open for the petitioner to contend that the respondents did not send him the allotment letter.

¶42

Further, the petitioner himself addressed letter, dated 31,08.2020, wherein he has admitted to the fact of not being available, having proceeded to his village. By the said lelter, though the petitioner sought to contend about the respondents stating that the shop would be^given to the^petitioner after 25.08.2021, after the expiry of the term of the earlier licence holder, it is to be seen nothing^prevented him from approaching the respondents in collecting the allotment letter or making the^payment in terms of the tender condition.

¶43

For the reasons best known, the^petitioner had failed to do so. in view of the failure on the^part of the^petitioner himself, lt is not open for him now to turn around and^question the action of the respondentsⁱⁿ cancelling the said allotment made in^{his favour,} due^{to non-payment of} the balance security deposit amount, after adjusting^{the EMD payment} made at the time of taking^part in the tender.^{Thus, thisCourtflnds no} inflrmity in the impugned action of^{the respondents in cancelllng the} tender that was finalized in favour of^{the petitioner lnitially.}

¶44

At this stage, learned^{counsel for the petitionermakesa Faint} request seeking a direction for^{refund of the EMD amount paid at the time}

¶45

¶46

0f submission^{c'tenderform, on the groundthat the petitioner could not} approach the^{espondentauthorlties at the relevantpoint of time on} account of^{Cov d-19. It is furtherprayedby the petitionerthat he would} approach the^{r tspondent authoritieswith a request to considerrefund of} the EMD amou^lt

¶47

12, Having^{egardto the above, the petltioner is at llbe(y to approach} the responder:s^{and submit a representation seekingrefundof the EMD} amount^{paid . t the time of tender without forfeitingthe sameUpon the} petitioner mat ng such^{representation,the respondentsshall consider the} same taking^{1to consideration the Covid-19 situationprevailedat the} relevant^point of^{timeand also the circumstancesthat led to the petltioner} not complyint^{with the termsof the allotmentletter'as the authorities} may deem^{fi1 andproperin the circumstances,and in accordance with} law.

¶48

Subjec.^{to the above observation and direction'the Writ Petitionis} devoid of an1^{merit and is accordingly dismissed'}

¶49

Pendir^{g miscellaneouspetitions,if any, shallslandclosed in the}

¶50

light of this^{f nal order. No order as to costs'}

¶51

SD/.K.VENKAtAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRA

¶52

,TRUE^COPY// SECTION ICER

¶53

\ To' ^'--ctor' Telangana^{State Road Transportcorporation'Bus} '1. The Mana ting utre ' B[;";;, M str;eranat, !go11u,;In3 "oor.lgs-i, MGBS, Hyderabad, r.s. i H: t"f fl^{:lt?ld?:x1",#T.Ti 5,;?.ri"'ptut, u.,} 5. Two CD^C' 'Pies' O. One SPare^CoPY'

MP BS\

)

{

HIGH COURT

DATED:06112t2021

./,
4*-t 7E
:."1
n I]t
fl[ (l

¶60

ORDER

¶61

WP.No.19451^{of 2020}

¶62

DISMISSING^{THE WRIT PETITION} WITHOUT C^SSTS

¶63

1-]l, ./
'>.<br>

D.Shanteshwar v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Shanteshwar v. The Telangana 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. Karri , Perumalla Muthyalamma Vs Narayana Nataraja

Mr. Parvatreddy Rohit Reddy Vs M/S. Vasavi Homes Private Limited

G. Sunitha Vs State of Telangana

Smt Jaheda Begum Vs State of telangana

Y.Santosh Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

J.Shanth Kumar Vs The State of Telangana