Disposed

G. Sujatha v. The Tsrtc

Telangana HC7 Jul 2025WP/36178/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hire-bus operator sought mandamus directing joint survey for hire charges on the Jagitial–Velgatur route. Without deciding merits, court permitted a fresh representation and directed respondents to consider it and pass orders after hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make fresh representation within one week; respondents to consider and pass orders after hearing, preferably within two months. No costs.

G. Sujatha Vs The Tsrtc — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

(Special Original^{J urisdiction)}

¶4

MONDAY,THE^{SE\IENTHDAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY FIVE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK}

¶7

WRIT PETITI^{ON NO: 36178 OF 2018}

¶8

Between:

¶9

G. Suiatha. W/o. Venkat Ramana,^{Age, 35 years,Occ,Business,} &p ftNo 3-6-91, vJninagar,^{Jagitial, JagiatialTown and Mandal,Karimnagar District'}

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

The TSRTC, Rep.,^{by its Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad,} Hyderabad.

¶13

The Regional^{Manager, KafimanagarRegion, Karimanagar'}

¶14

The Depot^{Manager, TSRTC, Jagitialdepot, Karimnagar District'}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article^{226 of the constitutionof lndiaprayingthat in the} circumstances^{statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court maybe pleased} to issue a writ,^{order or direct'ronmore particularlyone in the nature of mandamus} Oeciaring the action^{of the respondentsin not conductingthe joint survey to the} route Ja'gitial to^{Velgaturfor payment of the hire chargesas per the} _actual oplratiorftt vehicle^{utilizationof petitioner'sbus bearingNo. AP 15 Y 1480 for the} p!.ioJ fro* 16.05.2012 lo^{17.02.2017and the replacednewbus bearingNo. TS 21} i OOZ6^{presentlyoperated from 09.03.2017for the 1st respondentandoperating} the^{petitioneis bus in violationof Clause . (iii) of the agreementas illegal, abitrary'} in violation of^{principles of naturaljusticeand unjustifiab{eenrichment of the 1st} respondent.

¶17

A NO: 1 OF 2014

¶18

Petition under^{section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the HQh Court may be pleased to direct} ihe ,"spondents^{to dispose of the petit'roner's representationdated 17.o7.2018}

¶19

,/ Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. M.ACHYUTH REDDY /: Counsel for the Respondents: SRI CHANDRA SEKHAR^N {SC FOR^TSRTC zoNE 2)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PI'LI,A KARTHIK

¶22

MIT PETITION No.36178 0F 2018

¶23

O RD ER:

¶24

This Writ Petition is hled, under Articl e 226 of the

¶25

Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶26

"...to issue a urit, order or direction more particukrtu one in the rlature of mandantus d.eclqrinq tlv action of the respondents in not conductinq the ioint suruelt to the route Jagitial to Velgatur for poument of the hire charqes as per the actual operational uehicle utilizatiort of petitioner's bus beaino ra.Ap 15 y 14gO for the peiod from^16.O5.2O12 to t7-O2_2O17 and. the reploced neu bus beainq no.TS 21 T 0678 presentla operated. from O9.O3-2O17 for the 1"r respondetlt and operating the petitioner,s bus in uiolation of Cause 3 (iu) of the aqreement as illeqal, arbitraru, in uiokttion of principles of natural prctice and unjustifiable enichment of the l.t respond"ent and. mag pass..."

¶27

Heard Sri M.Achyuth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana Srate Road Transport Corporation, for the respondents.

¶28

Learncd counsel for the petitioner submits that in response [o the tender nolilrcarion issued by respondent No. 1 for supply ot passenger bus to be operated on the route Jagitial to Velgatur, one A.Lavanya was declared as successful bidder by the Entrepreneurs SelecLion Committee and the said A.Lavanya placed vehicle bearing No.AP 15 Y l48O for operation on hire basis by entering inro agreement, dated 18.O1_2OO8 for a period of four years, i(,hich ended on 17.Ol.2Ol2. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the bus bearing No.AP i5 Y 1480. Thereafter, the petitioner and

¶29

PK,J Wp.36178 20la

¶30

¶31

respondent No.3 entered into agreement, dated l6.Oj.2Ol2 for operating the bus from Jagitial to Velgatur untll t'i'.02.,.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner has replace<i tht: bus with new bus and made a representation to the respo:rdents on 17.O7.2018 requesting to conduct joint surey to the route Jagitial to Velgatur for payment of the hire charges as per the actual operational vehicle. However, no action has been tak.en by the respondents so far. Therefore, learned counsel pra)rs 11r," Court to permit the petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating her grievance and the respondents mav be directed to co:osider the same and pass appropriate orders within a stipu.tated period of time.

¶32

Learned Standing Counscl for the respondents sultmits that upon receipt of representation from the petitioner, the respondents will consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.

¶33

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and without going into thr: me:rits of the case, this Writ Petition is disposed of permitting the peiitioner to make a representation to the respondents ventilatinp; her grievance within a period of one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon receipt of such a representation, t[-e resipondents

PK,.I

I I

Wp_36178_2O la

¶40

are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunit5r of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two (2) months thereafter and communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner.

¶41

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶42

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶43

/- B. REKHA RANI S NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'/

CTION OFFICER

To,

The Managing Director,TSRTC,^{Bus Bhavan, Mush} d, Hyderabad.

¶48

The Regional Manager,^{Karimanagar Region, Karimanagar.}

¶49

The Depot Manager, TSRTC,^{Jagitialdepot, Karimnagar District.}

¶50

One CC to SRl. M.ACHYUTH^{REDDY Advocate} [OPUC]

¶51

One CC to SRl. CHANDRA^{SEKHAR N (SC FOR TSRTC ZONE 2) [OPUC]}

¶52

Two CD Copies

KKS KKS

I 1

HIGH COURT

DATED:0710712025

.- -, "-'-.:.,<br>, .-:. .ri.,l'.,.
+-
{), 'i ,l) 20 sEP zo25
" t,1.,'':'l ' '

¶58

ORDER

¶59

WP.No.36178 ot 2018

¶60

DISPOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

G. Sujatha v. The Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G. Sujatha v. The Tsrtc

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. Anthargama Chandramma Vs Sri. Akula Venkatesh

Thrinath Sandharaju Vs Sri B. Venkatesh, IAS

Bura Srinivas Vs Sri. E.V. Narasimha Reddy, IAS

Ganiboina Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana

Sri Bhaskar Alloy Castings Vs The State of Telangana

Sangepu Kavitha Vs The State of Telangana