Disposed

K.Sambhaiah v. The Managing Director of Tsrtc

Telangana HC24 Feb 2025WP/36320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his tender bid for Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Depot after negotiation enhanced his quote to Rs.19,800 per month. The court declined to interfere with the Tender Committee's decision but permitted the petitioner to make a representation for allotment limited to two businesses and directed respondents to consider it within two weeks, restraining interim allotment me

What did the court decide?

Liberty to make representation within one week; respondents to consider and pass orders within two weeks; no allotment of Stall No.16 until then; no costs.

K.Sambhaiah Vs The Managing Director of Tsrtc — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 36320 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

K.Sambhaiah, s/o. Lingaiah , Age.58 Years, Occ. Business, Fl/o. H. No.4-59, Razeepet Street, Parkal, (V XM), Hanumakonda District. P|N.506161.

¶9

..,PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 The Managing DirectorofTSRTC, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad

¶12

2 The Regional Manager, Warangal Zone, Waranagal District.

¶13

3 The Personal Officer, Regional Manager, Warangal Zone, Waranagal District

¶14

4 The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C, Parkal, Hanumakonda District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue an order, direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ orders or direction to the respondents call for the impugned Proceedings No.f 2.437(4)12-024 Daled. 19-12-2O24^passed by the 3rd respondent is liable to set-a-sided /quash the same by decladng the same is without applying the mind and contrary to the notification vide T21437(4) 2024 -RM.WL. Dated. 0B-10-2024 issued by the 2nd respondent is illegal arbitral and violation of natural^justice

¶17

!A NO: 1 OF 2024

¶18

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} suspend the impugned Proceedings No. T2.437(4)12-024^{Dated. 19-12-2024}

¶19

"*7

¶20

passed by the 3rd |espondent while directing the respondents to foliow the notification vide f2l.137(4) 2024 -RM.WL. Dated. 08-'10-2024 issued by^{the 2nd} respondent and to allc cate the stall No. 16 of parkal Dept to his^pet tioner

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VENKATESHWER RAO LAKKARAJU

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. CHANDRA SEKHAR, SC^{FOR TSRTC}

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

HON'BLE MRS^{JUSTICESUREPALLI NANDA}

¶25

WRIT PETITION^{No.36320 OF 202+}

¶26

ORD ER:

¶27

Heard Lakkaraju^{Venkateshwal Rao, learned} counsel appearing^{on behalfof the petitioner and Sri} N.Chandra Shekhar,^{learned standing counsel} appearing on behalf^{of the respondents'}

¶28

The^{petitionerapproachedthe Court seeking} prayer as under:

¶29

'.......to issue an order^{direction particularly one in the} nature of WRIT OF^{MANDAMUSor any otherappropriate} writ orders or direction^{to the respondentscall for the} impugned Proceedings^{No.T2/437(4)/2024-RM:WLDated} Ig.12.2024^passed by^{the 3'd respondent is liable to set-} a-sided /quash^{the same by declaring the same is without} applying the^{mind and contrary to the notification vide} T2/437(4)/2024-RM:WL,^{Dated08.10.2024issued by the} 2nd respondent is^{illegalarbitral and violationof natural} justice and to Pass.... "

¶30

It is specific^{case of the petitionerthat theznd} respondent had^{issued tender notification No'T2/437 (O4)l} 2024-RM:WL, dated^{08.t0.2024for grantinglease of stalls in} Parkal Bus Depot.^{The petitionerhereinhad participated in the}

¶31

¶32

tender anc applied for the Stall No. 16. As per the r.rorms, the petitioner rad deposited an initial bid amount of Rs.97,533/. The petiticrrer had initially quoted an amount of R:,;.10,233ltowards tht: license fee. But, the respondents h,lrein had negotiated rvith the petitioner and increased it to Rs.19,800/ and the s€rme was agreed by the respondents as well. Subsequently, the petitioner made several requests to the respondents to issue work order to the petitioner. However, the responJent No.2 had issued impugned procecding No. T2/437 (.04)/2024 - RW: WL dated 19.12.2024 reji,cting the petitioner's tid stating that the petitioner,s bid for monthly license fee of Rs.19,800/- p.m. is less than the existing license fee i.e., Rs.23,270/-. However, as per th3 tender notifi:ation ro minimum license fee per month was p;rescribe. Aggrieved t,), the said proceedings dated 19.12.20214 issued by the respondent No. 2, the present Writ petition is f led.

¶33

PE SED T E RECO D:-

¶34

4 Th co r avi n half th resoond ents and in Dartic lar ra Nos.8a nd9 are racted hereun der:-

¶35

¶36

B. It is submitted that Proceedings of the Tender Committee for manual tenders for letting out vacant stalls/open spaces/ca ntee n s/cycle & scooter stands at various Bus Station of the Warangal Region took place on 10.72.2024. In these proceedings, the tender for Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station was rejected by the Committee, citing two reasons. One that the revised quoted monthly rent of Rs.19,800/- was 30o/o lower than the previous monthly rent of Rs.28,270l-, which was collected during the earlier license period. And the second reason being that the Petition proposed a change in the nature of the business from "Popcorn, Juice, Cool Drink Stall" to "Bakery, luice, Mineral Water bottles. and Goli Soda," vide his negotiation letter dated 07.11.2024, which was not acceptable to the Committee.

¶37

It is submitted that the Tender Notification explicitly reserves the Corporation's right to reject any tender or cancel/postpone tenders at any stage without assigning any reasons vide clause 5 of Tender Notification dated O8.10.2O24. This condition was accepted by the Petitioner at the time of tender submission. Consequenfly, the Tender Committee rejected the petitioner,s offer th roug h proceed i n gs No.T 2 / 437 (4) / 2O24-R:M:,W L, dated 1O.12.2024, which was communicated vide

¶38

¶39

letter No. T2/437(4)/2O24-RM:WL, dated L9.12.2024.

¶40

The reolv to th coun ter a davit filed on behalf of

¶41

th res ond nts i ul ar No, ls xtracted

¶42

here der;-

¶43

. submit that Stall No.20 for juice, gen era I cool Drinks (3 items) same business gave by t hem for Rs.14,000/- only, now for shop No.16 any pe-missible busine ss, i,e., popcorn, luice Stall or Juice Bak(,rry, I am ready to do any one. In parkal Bus stand all the other shops having two business, popcorn, Snacks, l)opcorn_ luices, Jice Bakery. There is no clause as the asplrant to quoteci more than earlier old alleged rents, Ihere is vanati,lns of rents as per the quoted rents, sanre things exampl,: one stall for popcorn snacks for Rs.10,000/_ and Shop No.3 for same business Rs.23,000r,_. I am ready t: do any two business only as popcorn & Juice ,or^Juirtrl & Bakery anyone I am ready to do the same, the in:; de of the business and pucca buildings, but ,lutsid€, of the bus stands only open place they providing ils it w I additional burden to run make constructions by nne. I e rn submitting that as openly to avoid shcp to me they tcok lame excuses even there is no merits in their counter. If the respondents allow me to keep any shop what tl- ey said if they accepted my earlier tender

¶44

¶45

Rs.10,233l- now seasons already came and if any late it will be loss to us.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that it is stated in the counter affidavit at para No.13 that during negotiations made on 07.17.2024, the petitioner agreed to enhance the quoted monthly fee to Rs.19,BOO{-, p.m., the petitioner would conduct only two businesses instead of four businesses and hence, the request of the petitioner to allocate the Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station to the petitioner may be considered.

¶47

Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled for relief as prayed for by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition in view oF the decision of the Tender Committee. Proceedings of the Tender Committee No.T2/437(04)/2024-RM/WL, dated 10.t2.2024 which clearly indicates that the petitioner's case was considered and in view of the fact that the petitioner quoted 30o/o less rent on previous rent and committee did not agree

¶48

¶49

for ilccepting business in favour of the petiti()ner and therefore, tlre decision of the Tender Committee cannot be inter,rened by this Court in the present Writ petitior and the petitioner i,; not entifled for any relief in the Dresent Writ Petiticn.

¶50

Iakrns_ rnto cons deratton:

¶51

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.

¶52

b) The srrbmissions made by the tearned counsel appearing ,on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counset appearing on behalf of the respon den t s;.

¶53

c) The decision of the proceedings of Tender Committee for Manual Tenders for letting out of vacant Stalls/Operr Spaces/Canteens/Cycle & Scooter Stands at various Bus Stations of Warangal Region, vide proceedings No.T2/437(O4)/2O24_RM/WL, dated LO.L2.2024,

¶54

This Corrrt duly considering the averments made at para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the

¶55

¶56

respondent corporation (referred to and extracted above) opines that there cannot be any positive direction directing the respondents to consider petitioner's case and that the decision of the Tender Committee, dated 10.12.2024 cannot be interfered nor the impugned proceedings, dated L9.12.2024 issued to the petitioner by the respondent No.2 warrants any interference by this Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner would proceed with only two businesses, therefore, the request of the petitioner to allocate the Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station to the petitioner could be con sidered.

¶57

This Court opines that no mandamus can be issued in the present set of circumstances, the Writ Petition is however disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation seeking altocation of Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station to the petitioner for conduct of two businesses only within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and the respondents may be directed to consider the

I 0

, !

said request of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of two (O2) weeks thereafter.

¶62

The respondents are directed not to proceed with the allotment of the subject stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station till the above exercise is initiated and concluded by the respondents by passing of appropriate orders within the time period as stipulated as above duly considering the request of the petitioner to allocate Stall No.16 at Parkal Bus Station for conduct of two businesses only, upon the petitioner making a representation to that effect to the respondents within a period of one (O1) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶63

Accordingly, with these above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to '3osts.

¶64

¶65

Miscel trneous petitions, if any, pending in lhis Writ / Petition, shal stand closed. ..L__ .JL ----SD/. A.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT/REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶66

SECTION OFFICER

¶67

To, 't . The Managing D irector of TSRTC, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Hyderabad 2. The Regional ltlrrnager, Warangal Zone, Warangal^District.

¶68

-<-e**1

¶69

¶70

The^{Personal Officer' Regional Manager'WarangalZone'Waranagal District}

¶71

The^{DepotManager' T'S R T'C' Parkal' Hanumakonda District'}

¶72

One^{CC to SRIVENKATESHWER RAO LAKKARAJU Advocate IOPUC]}

¶73

OneCCto^{SRI N CHANDRASEKHAR' SCFORTSRTCTOPUCI}

¶74

Two^{CD CoPies}

KKS

CC TODAY

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212025

I
I

.
./
o F .!, \'a'<br>-)<br>L
,l( .$ I
.\ I
I '': .\s
t,
n'.<br>

¶83

ORDER

¶84

WP.No.36320 of 2024

¶85

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶86

SK
I

K.Sambhaiah v. The Managing Director of Tsrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sambhaiah v. The Managing Director of 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

Mudireddy Saraswathi Vs The State of Telangana

Yarrapati Pakeeru Vs The State of Telangana

Qazi Khaja Faizuddin Vs Sri. Syed Omer Jaleel

M/s. Ap Reddy Civil and Electrical Contractors Vs The State of Telangana

Guntamukkala Sivaram Prasad Vs The State of Telangana

Bandi Appireddy, Vs The State of Telangana