Disposed

Sk.Firoju v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC12 Apr 2022WP/12949/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Telangana High Court disposed of a Writ Petition and connected stay petitions at the admission stage. The petitioners, bus operators, challenged a mandate for bus refurbishment, citing pandemic-induced inactivity and COVID-19 lockdowns. They sought an order exempting them from overhaul obligations on their leased buses to TSRTC. The Court did not grant a blanket exemption but directed a Motor

What did the court decide?

Directed the Motor Vehicle Inspector to verify the condition of the buses. To be decided upon Fitness Certificate whether to allow plying without overhaul. No order as to costs.

Sk.Firoju Vs The Telangana State Road… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

TUESDAY ,THE IWELFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 12949 OF 2022

¶6

Betwee n :

¶7

SK.Firoju, S/o. Khadhir, Aged about 31^years, Business,^(TSO4 UC-l1^13), R/o.H No.'1-59, Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶8

J.Satya Srinivas, S/o. Laxminarayana, Aged about 46^years, Business,^{(TS 04} UB-9777), R/o.Duddepudi Village, Vemsoor lt4andal, Khammam District,^T.S.,

¶9

V.Srinivas Rao, S/o. Irrlohan Rao, Aged about 52^years, Business. (TS 04 UC-68), Rio.H.No.17-143, Ayyagaripeta, lt/ain Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶10

V.Sujatha, W/o. Lokanandam, Aged about 48^years, Business,^(TS 04 UC268), R/o.H.No.17-1041A, Srinivasa Theatre Road, Sneha Vidyalayam, Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶11

V.Sai Krishna, S/o. Lokanandam, Aged about 26^{years, Business,} (TS 04 UC-S3), R/o. H.No.17-104/A, Srinivasa Theatre Road, Sneha Vidyalayam, Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally, Khammam Dlstrict,^T.S.,

¶12

K.Sridhar, S/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 47^{years, Business, (TSO4UB-8777),} R/o.H.No.7-B-1BB/1 , [/ain Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S..

¶13

SK.Kareemoon, W/o. Khadhir, Aged about 50^years, Business,^(TS 04^UC- 1 1 1 4), R/o.H.No.1-59, Hanuman Nagar,Sathupally, Khammam District,^T.S.,

¶14

B. P.Sai Naveen, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 23^{years, Business,} (TS 04 UB-8313), Ri o. H .No.15-180i 1, Priyadharshini Road, Ayyagaripet, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶15

SK.Subani, S/o. Khasim Soheb, Aged about 44^{years,Business,} (TS 04 U8-9666), R/o.H.No.1-49121 , Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶16

J.Ratna Srinivas, S/o. Venkata lvladhava Rao, Aged about 53^years, Business, (TS 04 UB-9888), (TS 04 UC-1112), R/o.H^No.16-149, Vidhyanagar, By pass Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶17

11.S.Ramesh, Sio. Chalapathi Rao, aged about 50^{years,business,} (TS 04 UB 8309) R/o. H.No.15-180/1 , f'"4D Hospital Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, TS.,

...PETITIONERS

/ ./

AND

The Telangana State^{Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its lManaging} Director, Bus Bhavan,^{lvlusheerabad, T.S.}

¶22

The Regional lvlanager,^{TSRTC, Khammam Region, Khammam, T S'}

¶23

Personal Officer, TSRTC,^{Khammam Region, at Khammam,T S}

¶24

Depot Manager, TSRTC,^{SathupallyBus Depot, at Sathupally, Khammam} District.

¶25

...RESPONDENTS

¶26

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in^{the affidavitfiled therewith,the High court maybe} pleased to issue a writ or order or direction^{more particularly one in the natureof} writ of mandamus declaring^{that the actionof lhe respondentsin demanding} refurbishing / co of^{petitioners busesbefore 31-3-2022is bad, arbitraryand} iilegat by setting aside^{the IettersNo, E1/259(1)12022-sPL, dt.10-1-2022of the} 4th respondent herein and direct^{the respondentsnot todemandfor} refurbishment/ CO of the^{petitioners buses (TS 04 UC-1113,TS 04 UB-9777'} TS 04 UC-68, TS 04UC.268,^{TS 04 UC.93, TS 04UB.B777' TS 04UC.1114,} TS O4U 88313, TS 04UB-9666,^{TS 04 UCl112'and TS 04UB-8309)forfifth year'}

¶27

lA NO: 3 OF 2022

¶28

BETWEEN

¶29

The Telangana State Road Transport^{Corporation, Rep. by its tr,4anaging} Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,^T.S.

¶30

The Regional Manager, TSRTC, Khammam^{Region, Khammam, T.S.}

¶31

Personal Officer, TSRTC, Khammam^{Region, at Khammam,T.S.}

¶32

Depot Manager, TSRTC, Sathupally^{Bus Depot, at Sathupally, Khammam} District.

¶33

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS

¶34

AND

¶35

1 SK.Firoju, Sio. Khadhir, Aged about 31^{years, Business,(TS04 UC-1113),} R/o.H.No.1-59, Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam^{District,T.S.,}

¶36

2 J.Satya Srinivas, S/o. Laxminarayana,^Aged about^{46 years, Business, (TS 04} UB-9777), R/o.Duddepudi Village, Vemsoor Mandal,^{Khammam District,T.S..}

¶37

V.Srinivas Rao, S/o. lt/ohan Rao, Aged about 52 years, Business, (TS 04 UC-68), R/o.H.No.17-'143, Ayyagaripeta, IMain Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶38

V.Sujatha, Wlo. Lokanandam,^{Agedabgut48 years, Business (TS 04 UC-} 268), R/o.H.No.17-104/A,^{SrinivasaTheatre} -^{Road, SnehaVidyalayam,} Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally, Khammam^{District, T S.,}

¶39

V.Sai Krishna, S/o.^{Lokanandam,Aged about 26 years, Business,} (TS 04 UC-93) R/o. H.No.17-1 04/A, Srinivasa^{Theatre Road,Sneha} Vidyalayam, Ayfagaripeta, Sathupally,^{Khammam District, T.S.,}

¶40

K.Sridhar, S/o. Babu Rao,^{Aged about 47 years, Business, (TSO4UB-8777)'} R/o. H. No.7-B-1BB/1 , Main Road, Sathupally,^{Khammam District, T.S..}

¶41

SK.Kareemoon, W/o. Khadhir, Aged^{about 50 years, Business,(TS 04 UC-} 1 1 1 4), R/o.H.No.1 -59, Hanuman Nagar,Sathupally,^{Khammam District, T.S.'}

¶42

B. P.Sai Naveen, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about^{23 years, Business,} (TS 04 UB-8313), Ri o. H .No.15-180/ 1, Priyadharshini Road, Ayyagaripet, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶43

SK.Subani, S/o. Khasim Soheb, Aged about 44^years, Business, (TS 04 U8-9666), Rl/o.H.No.1-49121 , Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶44

10.J.Ratna Srinivas, Sio. Venkata lVladhava Rao, Aged about 53 years, Business, (TS 04 UB-9888), (TS 04 UC-1112), R/o.H No.16-'149, Vidhyanagar, By pass Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T. S.,

¶45

11.S.Ramesh, Sio. Chalapathi Rao, aged about 50 years, b usrness, (TS 04 UB 8309) R/o. H.No.15-180/1, MD Hospital Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, TS.,

¶46

...RESPONDENTS /PETITIONERS

¶47

Petilion 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 order dated 14.03.2022 in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 in WP. No. 12949 o't 2022

¶48

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶49

Betwee n:

¶50

SK.Firoju, S/o. Khadhir, Aged about3l years, Business, (TSO4 UC-1113), R/o.H,No.1-59, Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶51

J.Satya Srinivas, S/o. Laxminarayana, Aged about 46 years, Business, (TS 04 U8-9777), R/o.Duddepudi Village, Vemsoor Mandal, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶52

V.Srinivas Rao, S/o. I,4ohan Rao, Aged about 52 years, Business, (TS 04 UC-68), R/o.H.No.17-143, Ayyagatipeta, tvlain Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶53

V.Sujatha, W/o. Lokanandam, Aged about 48 years, Business, (TS 04 UC268), R/o.H.No.17-1041A, Srinivasa Theatre Road, Sneha Vidyalayam, Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶54

I I

¶55

V.Sai Klslna, Sio. Lokanandam, Aged about 26 years, Business, (TS 04 UC-93), R/o. H.No.17-104/A, Srinivasa Theatre Road, Sneha Vidyalayam, Ayyagaripeta, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶56

K.Sridhar, S/o. Babu Rao, Aged about 47 years, Business, (TSO4 UB8777), R/o.H.No.7-B-1BBl1, Main Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶57

SK.Kareemoon, W/o. Khadhir, Aged about 50 years, Business, (TS 04 UC-1 114), R/o.H.No 1-59, Hanuman Nagar,Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶58

B. P.Sai Naveen, S/o. Subba Rao, Aged about 23 years, Business, (TS 04 UB-8313), R/ o. H.No.15-180/'1 , Priyadharshini Road, Ayyagaripet, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.

¶59

SK.Subani, S/o. Khasim Soheb, Aged about 44 years, Business. (TS 04 U8-9666), R/o.H.No.1-49121, Hanuman Nagar Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶60

J.Ratna Srinivas, S/o. Venkata l,4adhava Rao, Aged about 53 years, Business, (TS 04 U8-9888), (TS 04 UC-1112), Rio.H.No.16-149, Vidhyanagar, By pass Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, T.S.,

¶61

11.S.Ramesh, S/o. Chalapathi Rao, aged about 50 years, business, (TS 04 UB 8309) R/o. H.No.15-180/1 , MD Hospital Road, Sathupally, Khammam District, TS.,

¶62

...PETITIONERS

¶63

AND

¶64

The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, T.S.

¶65

The Regional l,4anager, TSRTC, Khammam Region, Khammam, T.S.

¶66

Personal Officer, TSRTC, Khammam Region, at Khammam, T.S.

¶67

Depot l,4anager, TSRTC, Sathupally Bus Depot, at Sathupally, Khammam District.

¶68

...RESPONDENTS

¶69

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 amend the prayer/ s in W.P. No.1294912022 and in l.A. No.1 of 2022 in W.P. No.1294912022 by adding "and consequential Procs. No. C11359 (Wp12949)12022- RM :KIr/M dt.31-3- 2022 of the 2nd respondent herein" in the ptace subsequent to the letter No. E11259(1)12022-SPL dt.10-1-2022 of the 4th respondent in the prayer portions.

¶70

IA NO: 1 0F²⁰²²

¶71

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} directtheRespondentsnottodemandforrefurbishment/Coofthepetitioners buses^(TS 04^{UC-1113, TS 04 UB-g777'TS 04 UC-68' TS 04UC-268'} TS 04 UC-93,^{TS 04 UB-8777, TS O4UC'11'1 4, TS O4U 88313' TS O4UB'9666'} TS04UC1l12andTS04UB-8309)forfifthyearhereinbysuspendingletterg No. E1/259(1 )12O22-SPL,^{dllO-1-2022 of the 4th respondent pending further} orders in^W.P.

¶72

Counsel for^{the Petitioners : SRI'P VENKATESWARRAO} Counsel^{for the Respondents:B MAYUR REDDY (SC FOR TSRTC)} The Court^{at the stage of admissionfollowing : ORDER}

¶73

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{A. ABHISHEKREDDY}

¶74

WIIIT PETII'I ON No.12949^{of 2022}

¶75

ol(DI-lt:

¶76

I lear<l the learne^{c1 counsel for tl-re petitionels arrcl Sri I}, N,Iayur} Reclcly, the learned^{StanclingCounselfor TSRTCappearingfor the} respondents. With^{their consent,the plesent Writ Petition is being} disposed of at^{the stage of admission itself '}

¶77

Thiswritpetitionisfiledseekingtodeclaretl-reactionofthe respondent No.4^{in issuing the letters clatecl 10 01 2022 demandingthe} petitioners to^{refurbish/ complete overhaulthe buses before 31 .03.2022,as} arbitrary anrl^{i1legal, the petitioners have filecl the plescntw'r'it pctition.}

¶78

Accordingtothcpetitioners,tlreyenterec]irrtoagreementswitlrtlre respondent No.2^{to ply their buses on hire basis to the responcient-} Cor.poration on^{the routesdecicledby the responclent-Corporationon} certain terms^{ancl conclitions mentionedin the agreements'As per the} agreements,^{the petitioners have to operate the busesfor four years in the} first spell^{ar-rcl thereafter,before completionof the fifth year, tlreir buses} should be refurbished/^{overhauled.It is stated that the iease period was} extended upto^{2023 by executing new agleementsfor fifth and sixth years.} While so, the^{respondent No.4has issued the impugnedletters askingthe}

¶79

¶80

peti tiolte.rs to refurbislr/ overha u I their buses before 31.03.2022 Flence, th is t,rit petition.

¶81

Lea,,cd counser for trre f'retitioners has stated that crue to the covrD 19 pa1161s1116 situation, rnost of thc lease peliocJ, tlre buses coulcl not be operatecl, anci tlrerefore, thc l.retitioners lray be exentltted fronr refurbishing/overhauiing Lhe buses TIte learnetj (roultsel has filed ihe photographs srrowing ilre pr1y5i6;r co,dition of trre buses, .rncl lras prayccl this Court b direct the respondents not to insist fol refu rL.,isl-ring/ or.,erha ulir-rg the buses.

¶82

Per corr tra, thr: learnecl Starrcl ing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has vehementiy opposeci the very maintainability of the writ petition and has stated that as per the terms and conditions of the iease agreements' trre petitioners are obrigatecl to refurbish/overhaur their buses at the encr of the fourth year' That once the petitioners, knowing fury well the terrns a,cl corrcritions, rrave ertered i'to the agreenlellts, they cannot seck any exernptiotl' Learrred Stancrirrg Counser furtr.rer statecr that unless ancl urrtil tho buses a rct conrirlstply over.ha ^as u Ieti/ re[u rbishetJ, t]re buses canrrot Lre contitrue cl to be used by the responc.lent-Corpora tion, as the safety and cornfort of the passengers would lre at risk.

¶83

llaviug regard to the above nrade submissious and after going through the photographs fired by the petitioners and arso the fact that most \

¶84

¶85

of the buses hired b1, the Corporation coul-1 not be piierl in view of the locktlown irnposetl dLre to COVID- 19, tl-ris Court is ol lb,e prinrn fncir' opinion that encls of justice wou1c1 be met if the corrcerneri Motol Vehicle Iuspector is directed to verify as to whether the buses, which are hilecl by the respondent-Corporation, are in fit running conclition aucl^tl-re seats/ furnishings are also in goocl condition, as statecl by the'^le'arnecl counsel for the petitioners. Sr-rbject to lssuance of liitness Ccrtificate as per the proceciulc prescribetl untler larv, the Authority shall cor-rsirlcr thc sanrt: anrl take a ciecision whether to permit the petitioners to ply thc buses without insisting for overhauling or not. Tl-ris entire exercise shali^Lre completed as expecli tio r-rs1y as possible preJerably within a peliorl of thlee weeks from the clate of receipt of a copy of this orcler.

¶86

Accorclingly, the wlit petition is clisposed of. Tl-rere shall be no ortlcr as to costs.

¶87

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stariel closcd.

¶88

sD/-K.VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGIqdRAR ..c

¶89

//TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER

¶90

To, 1 The lr/anaging^{Director,Telangana State Road Transport Corporation'Bus} Bhavan, Musheerabad,^T.S

¶91

ih" n"gi"""f^{f',4anager, TSRTC, KhammamRegion' Khammam' T S}

¶92

Cont'd

¶93

-G:='r*

¶94

'-B:,;]iffi^{:LH'SS3Sl'fl [[il#'"$"ffi':i3lilili'l'?n"**'*} $?#+"'.3i"c"r'Y:L."toPucl

¶95

,'i:i[:gs5,sJilsA+:ffi : HgBf;r:;,

5D SB r) l,/

\ HIGH COURT

DATED:1210412022

.f,i,"<' "
:)
i
10lo 25 Aiii ii",'
/:
>i

¶100

ORDER

¶101

WP.No.12949 of 2022

¶102

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS.

Sk.Firoju v. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sk.Firoju 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

M/s. Gaurav Contracts Co. Vs The Singareni Colleries Company Limited

Sri Sajja Rajasekhar Vs The State of Telangana and 2 others

A.Balaiah Vs The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 Other

M/s Karthikeya Infra Developers Vs The State of Telangana

S.Vishnavi Vs The State of Telagnana and 2 others

M/s Prajapati Constructions and Developers Vs The State of Telangana