Disposed

Sri B.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC16 Mar 2022WP/9041/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the inaction of Transport Corporation officials. The petitioner was ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,03,824/- as license fee and charges, permitting him to run the cycle stand until the end of August, 2022.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to pay Rs.1,03,824/-. Upon payment, respondent permitted for cycle stand operation till August 2022 subject to contract terms.

Sri B.Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

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

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF I/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶5

Betwee n:

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:9 041 0F 2022

¶7

Sri B.Srinivas. Aoe. 46 vrs _ Occ. Business, R/o.H.No.1-1O-2S7lS, Kala Nagar. Metpally. Telang5na Staie-505325.

¶8

AND

¶9

.-.PETITIONER

¶10

1 The State of Telangana. Rep.by its principal Secretary. Transport De.partmenl Secretariat. Hyderabad. Telangana Statd.

¶11

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporatioin, Rep Oy its Chairman, Bus Bhavan. l\4usheerabad, Hvderabad.

¶12

1. Telangana State Road rransport corporation. Rep by its Vice chairman and lvlanaging Director, Bus Bhavan, tvlus'heera bad, Hvdrjrabad.

¶13

1. !1e^cgliyq^{Directol, (REV.and tT) and Secretary to Corporation, Bus Bhavan,} UPD (Mktg. and Corn)wino, Musheerabad, Hvderabad.

¶14

A The Divisional [/anaeer, TSRTC, Adilabad Di'vision, Adilabad District, Telanqana State.

¶15

1. Jlg^{nggqolqtManager, TSRTC,Aditabad Region, Aditabad} District,Tetangana State-SO5 001 .

¶16

The Depot V.rl"S_qr,,-I9BTC, Metpaily Bus Station, Aditabad District, I elangana State-505 001.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the in action of the Respondents No.5 to 7 not implementing the proceedings No.C3/ 37(23)/2020-OpD(M and C) dated 0410912021 issued by the Respondent No.3 is highry, unwarranted, highry arbitrary, unfair,unjust,irrationar, unrawfur and viorative of Articres i4 and 21 of the constrtution of rndia and consequenfly direct the Respondents to consider the representation dated. I 0/08/2021 pending disposar of the main writ petition

¶19

lA NO: 1 oF 2022

¶20

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 preased to direct

¶21

theRespondentst)re.opentheStallandcontinuetodobusinesspending disposal of^{the main writ} Petition

¶22

IA NO :2OF 20²²

¶23

Petition unde Section^{151 CPC praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed^{in ,upportof the petition,the High Court maybe pleased to stay} allfurtherproceedinlsincludingcallingfortendersforhisstallpendingdisposalof the main writ Petitior

¶24

Counsel for^{the Pet tioner:SMT. VLADIMEERKHATOON}

¶25

Counsel for^{Respordent No. 1: GP FOR TRANSPORT}

¶26

Counsel for^{Respordent Nos. 2 to 7: SRI N' PRAVEEN KUMAR'} SC FOR TSRTC

¶27

The Court made^{th€ following:ORDER}

¶28

/./

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.9041 of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. Praveen Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Corporation. With their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶33

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 not implcmenring the proceedings No.C3/.+37(23)/2020-OPD(M&C) dated 04-09-2021 issued bl' rcspondent No.3 :.rs illegal and arbitr:rn.

¶34

Thc lcanrccl r'ounscl lor thc llcLitiolr('r hus slitlr:d thi,rt^(''('r'r though thr,' rcsponclcnt No.3 l-ras issr-.rc'r1 t ht,' pror:t:cclings cl:Ltcd 0.+.09.202 I givine thc bcnt:lit of c'rlcndine the Iicensr-' pt:riorl o1' exisring thc contraicL b\ one vi:ar in rcsll('ct o1 :rll thrtse' lict:t'tst:trs. i1' such extensior-r is provided, thcl' shail ]lav the licencc: fcc for ihe months of May, June, Jull' and Augttst, 2021 in four equal instalments in the months of October, November, December, 202¹ and January, 2022. Learned counsel has stated that even though the petitioner has given a represenlation in the month of August, 2021, L1Ll date, there is no response from the authorities and^no orders are passed tirereon. Learned counsel has further stated^that subsequentll', thc licer-rse ol the pctirioner camc to an cnd^or-t 03.09.202 1. Furlher it is statcd Lhat due to tl.re^{pal.rd.rr'rric Covid-l9} situ:rtiort, the bltsincss of rhe petitrottcr \':1s i'Lcli'crsclv alli:ctccl^irllcl

¶35

¶36

virtually there was no business from March,^{2O21,onwards.} Learncd counsr t has further stated that the buses of^{the Corporation} iirc not runnir : properll^{and onlr' parti:tl services:rre I'csumeclbv} thc CorporiLt io evcn till clate. Th:rt lhe^{pctitrotlcr is i.r'illlng to paY} lhc lttrlrLtnts c -rc^{to th(' olliciitl r,-'sportclctttsrLncl th( bcllclit o1' thc} proclcclinss r lr' cri 0-1.(l(1.202 1 rnur bc cxlcr-tcierd trt lLt:^pt'titioner rls well so tliilt t h r petitioner ctln recollp sotne ol 1he Losses.^{u hicl-r he} has rncuircd.

¶37

Per contl r, the learned Standing Counsel, on Lnstrllctions,^has stared that tl e petitioner is due an amount ol Rs.2,02,950/-, Moreover, the contract of the petitioner came to zrn end on 03.o9.20'21. 1 -rerefore, the question of extending the license period does not arise. Hence, he pral,ed to dismiss the n,rit petition.

¶38

Heard ar d perused the record.

¶39

The lear ncd Standing Counsel has produced a statement shou ing t1'rc d ihults committcd bl the petitioner. A pcrusal o1' the Samc ShOr,r.S tl aL thc petitioner- has noL paicl the lii:t nst fce lbr the months ol Ap r1, Mar'. ,Jr-r1r'. Augr:st. Septerrbcr, 2.)20, arnd N'lar'', ,Jtrrrt'.,IuI-r an I Arrgr-rst.⁾⁰² I :rncl 01.0q.202I lo^()3.09.202 10 Thc tolr rl lri:c n st 'r' rir-rc irkrrtg tvitlr tl'ic dclirr-rlt itrL.'tLrst thcrcorr is ir1t1rt oxttt tit lclr Rs,2,02.9501-. Houcver, the kr:rrnt:rl ::ounscl lirr rhe pctil ion er har s stiltcd that on arrL earlier occasion. the Corporarrion itscif has giver Lhe benefit ol adjusting the securitl' <leposit lying rvith

¶40

¶41

the official^{respondentslor the months ol April' 2O2O to Septembcr'} 2020. Therefore,^{thc qucstionol incluclirlg the said att-tt'rutrt s itl tht:} present cAlculation^{memosubmittedb}' thc officierl rcspondcntsdocs} not arise.^{Learned counselhas also stated that once the securit-r'} deposit is adjusted,^{the petitioner is only liable to pay for the months} of May, June, July^{and August,2021 , and three days in the month of} September, 2O21'^{Thus, the learned counselfor the petitionerdoes} not dispute the^{amounts shown in the calculationmemofiled by the} official respondents,^{except for the months of April' 2O2O} '^lo September,2020'IfthebenefitofMemoNo.c3l437(23]|l2o2o. OPD(MBC), dated^{31.10 2020, is extended'the petitioneris also not} liable to^pay interest^{as shown in the calculation memo'}

¶42

Having regard^{to the above maclc submissiotls and also thc fact} thatl.heoflicialresponclentsart:aIrt.-aclr,}.rar,irlgth(]sccurit'clcpr>sit ancl as pcr^{the mcmo No C3/ "137(23)/2020-OPD(MBC)'dated} 31.10.202O,^{thc olficial respondentsha"'e takcn zr dccisiot-tto collcct} the rents only^{from the monthof Ocrober' 2O2O' ithas to be} construed that^{the security deposit, which was lying with rhe official} respondents,^{is already adjusted towards the license fee for the} months of April,^{2O2O, to September, 2O2O 'If the said adjustmentis} taken into^{consideration, the petitioneris due oniy from May' 2027} to03.0g.202l.Asperthecalculationmemo,theamountspayable by the^{petitioner towards the licensefee and also the maintenance}

¶43

¶44

r'hrlr!a( s conl( ull to Rs.I .(lil.lt24/ 'i'hcrcfori . the pr,lit ont'r' is lialrlc to llit\ lltt' lLt.nsc li'r' l'i,.rnr lvl;rr. -21121 1r,^(..)ll.(,rct 2t1.2 1 onh. In ir(i(iili()1). ilrr' rr'tiiiottlr is alsrr iiiLi>lt tct llrt tltc rrr.rit:,r,.rr.rrr('c c ltargt's i'or LI'tr: rtlorill s Ul' ,\1rIil. .lO2(.t tr., :,( ptcntbCl'. -l(.)2(). .ut(i ll'om Mtrt, '2O21 to O3., tc).202 I . 'l'1'rus. thc tolirl ilntoliltr l;ur ablc I>r, titc pe titioner con es t0 Rs.1.03,824/-.

¶45

Havrng regard to the above, the u,rit iletition is disposed of directing the 1 etitioncr to pa)' a sum of Rs.1.O3,.324l u'irhin a period two weeks fro n the date of receipt of a cop'r c:f this ordcr. On such pavment beir 3 made , the olficiai resporrdcnrs shall permit the petitioner to c )n[inuc to run thc c1,cle stand till the et-rri ol'August, 2022. Horvevr r, it is madc clcar th:rt tl're petitioiter shall cc.rntinue to p:rr thc rnont rh licr:r-rst iet' ancl cha;-!res iis ]ler. thc tcrms and t'onditior-rs o1 t rc^(tontract. In case. the 1;ctitior,er lails to:or.nplv rr.irl-L :r1.1\ ol th( co rcijtions stipLrlitle(l br this Courl . ihis orclt.r stancls ztr-r1<;marlic:;rllr r aLr.rCcllt (l illtcl LltL: Oi'lir.iai rt sporrlCr.tls. rrr.r' ll-r,t. to takt t-t(-( ('ssilrV l I('t l( ll

¶46

\iisccllrr r'()Lls l)e iili()lls ltt nilrn!. ii irn,. sltr,ll stirn<l cklsed 'lhcrc shall I:c Lo orclc:r as to costs

¶47

¶48

Sd/-8. SATYAVATHI ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// /'1

(- [t')

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Princioal Se, retary,^{Transport Department, Stateof Telangana} Secretariai,^{Hydr rabad. Telangana State'}

¶53

i;; C'#i;;r;,1^{:langanaslaie noao Transport Corporation'Bus Bhavan'} Musheerabad,^H'derabad.

¶54

iffVi;; C[;ir.^{,n ino Manuging Director,Telangana State RoadTransport} Corporation.^{Bus Bhavan. [Vusheerabad' Hyderabad}

¶55

The Executive Director,^{(REV.and lT) and Secretaryto Corporation,Bus} Bhavan,OPD^(Mktg. and^{Corn)wing,l.4usheerabad,FlYderaba{}

¶56

The Divisional l,4ariager,^{TSRTC,Adilabad Division,Adilabad District,} Telangana State.

¶57

The R"egional Manager,^{TSRTC,Adilabad Region,Adilabad District,Telangana} State-505 001.

¶58

The Depot Manager, TSRTC,^{tvletpallyBus Station,Adilabad District,} Telanoana State-S05 001.

¶59

one iC to Smt. Vladimeer Khatoon^Advocate IOPUCI

¶60

S. f*o CCs to GP For Transport,^{High Court for the Stateof Telangana} [OUT] 10. One CC to Sri N. Praveen^{Kumar, SC for TSRTC (OPUC)}

¶61

11.Two CD Copies

¶62

12.One Spare Copy

¶63

IMBC

<J-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1610312022

E. STA I
1
/
<br>:
k
o
? 4 M'1ii z'lt
, 1-

¶69

ORDER

¶70

WP.No.9041 of 2022

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶72

WITHOUT COSTS

¶73

zN=

Sri B.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B.Srinivas v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

KannekantiYadagiri Vs State of Telangana

Nagulavancha Pushpalatha and 3 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

Gongalla Jyothi Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Bygging India Limited Vs Ncc Limited

P. Venkateshwar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Sri.Boorla Yellaswamy Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others