Disposed

Md. Saleem v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Telangana HC13 Feb 2025WP/3969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lessee of a DOT stall at Banswada RTC bus stand challenged a fresh tender notification issued despite an earlier direction to reconsider his lease-extension request. The respondents produced proceedings dated 07.01.2025 reconsidering and rejecting his claim. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to challenge those proceedings, with a week's protection from coercive steps.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to challenge proceedings dated 07.01.2025; no coercive steps against petitioner for one week; no costs.

Md. Saleem Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

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

¶3

THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 3969 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Md..Saleem, S/o. Md.Akber Ali, aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H No.3_3_ 38, Kota Galli, Banswada, Kamare?dy District.^'

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

Telangana Slate Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan, RTC_X_Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Dir6ctor.

¶12

The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶13

The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Bansada Depot, Kamareddy District.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the 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 lt/andamus declaring the impugned Manual render Notification vide case No.c1l122(8)12024-RM NZB dated. o3to2t2o2s issued by the 2nd respondent calling up fresh tender in respect of Dor stall No.7 of lndira RTC Bus stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed under Dor (Deposit, operate and rransfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, without reconsidering the request of the petitioner for extension of lease, and contrary to directions issued by this Honourable court in wp No.1768 t2o2s dated. 24to1t2o2s, is highty illegat, arbitray, unjust, unconstitutional, and in violation of principles of natural justice, and set aside the same to extent of petitioners case is concerned, and consequently direct the respondents herein to extend the license period for remaining period of five (5) years in respect of subject stall.

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

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 IVanual Tender Notification vide Case No.C1h22(8)12O24RM:NZB dated. 0310212025 issued by the 2nd respondent to extent of petitioners case is concerned, bv directing the respondents to extend the license to the petitioner for remaining period of five (5) years from 0110112025 onwards in respect of DOT Stall No.7 of lndira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada, Kamareddy District, which was constructed under DOT (Deposit, Operate and Transfer) scheme, in the year, 2007, pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI R.ANURAG, (SC FOR TSRTC)

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

HON'BLE^{MRS ]USTICE SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶22

R PE TI NN 3 69 F 2

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

Heard Sri^{Mohd. Moin Ahmed Quadri' learned counse!} appearing^{on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R'Anurag'} learnedStandingCounselforTSRTC,appearingonbehalf of the respondents.

¶25

2.7 e ion ra ro he t c u se kin r er

¶26

as u nder:

¶27

"...to ISSUC a writ, order^{or directionmore} particularlY one in the nature^{of Writ of Mandamus} declaring^{the impugnedManual Tender Notification vide} Case No.C1l122(8)/2024-RM:NZB^{dated 03'02'2025} issued by the^{2nd respondentcalling up fresh tenderin} respect of^{DOT Stall No'7 of Indira RTC Bus Stand'} Banswada,^{Kamareddy District, which was constructed} under DOT^{(Deposit, Operateand Transfer) scheme'in} the year,^{2007, withoutreconsideringthe request of the} petitioner for extension^{of lease, and contraryto} directions^{issued by this Hon'ble Court inWP} No.176812025^{dated:24' Ol'2025,ishighlv illegal'} arbitrary,^{unjust, unconstitutional, and in violationof} principles of natural^{justice,and set aside the same to} extent of^{petitioner's case isconcerned'and} consequently^{direct the respondentsherein to extend} the license^{periodfor remainingperiod of five (5) years}

SN,J wp 3969 2025

in respect of subject stall, and to^pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit^and proper in the circumstances of the case."

¶32

The case of the^petitioner, in brief, is that the^petitioneris the lease holder of the shop of Indira RTC Bus Stand, Banswada and he is doinq business at road margin of RTC Bus Stand.^In the year, 2007, to remove the road margin vendors and for the expansion of road, the Government^promised the^petitioner to allot shopS in the newly constructed building under DOT Scheme for a period of twenty (20) years, for which the^petitioner agreed. After completion of construction of shops,^{initially,the} petitioner was granted the lease for a period of five (5) years on a fair monthly rent and the said lease was extended from time to time, and was valid till the end of December, 2024. \t is further the case of the^petitioner that the^petitioner is further entitled for getting remaining five (5) years lease i.e., upto, December, 2029 as per resolution No.133/2007, dated 24.LO.2007, however, the said lease is not being extended. Though this Court vide its order dated 24.07.2025 in W.P.No.1768 of 2025, directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner for extension of lease for further period of five years up to

SN,J wp 3969_2025

December,^{2029 within a period of two (02) weeksfrom the date} of the said^{order and till such time' the respondentswere} directed not^{to dispossessthe petitionerfrom the subject stall'} the respondent-co^{rporatio n issuedManualTender Notification} vide case^{No.c1l122(B) I2OZ -RM:NZB dated 03-02'2025calling} up fresh^{tender in respect of the DOT Stall No'7 of IndiraRTC} Bus Stand,^{Banswada, KamareddyDistrict'Aggrieved by the} saidactionoftherespondent-corporation,whichisinclear violation of^{the orders of this Court, dated 24'Ol'2025 passedin} W.P.No.lT6Eof2025,thepetitionerfiledthepresentwrit petition.

¶37

Sri R.Anurag,^{learnedStandingCounsel for TSRTC} appearing on^{behalf of the respondents placed on record the} proceedings dated^{07.Ol'2025vide No'LC/785(70)12024-} RM:NZBoftheRegionalManager,Nizamabadi.e.,respondent No.2 herein and^{contendsthat the order of this Court dated} 24.01.2025^{passed in W'P'No'1768of 2025 had beenduly} complied^{with and the request of the petitionerfor extension of} lease^{period of DOT stalls for another five years in accordanceto} lawhadbeenreconsideredbytherespondentcorporationduly considering^{the specific plea of the petitionerthat the petitioner}

I I t E I

SN.J w^{3969 2025}

had contributed certain amounts for construction of shops and appropriate reasoned orders had been passed and to ensure transparency and fairness, it is just and necessary that auction needs to be conducted and the request of the petitioner to run petitioner's business for a further period of five years, cannot be accepted.

¶42

akin tn consid r

¶43

a) The submissions made by the learned counse! iippearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of the respondent-corporation and,

¶44

b) The proceedings of respondent No.2 dated 07.O1.2025 vide No.LCl785(7O)/2O24-RM:NZB issued in compliance to the orders of this Court dated 24.O1.2O25 passed in W.p.No.L76B of 2OZS,

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the said proceedings dated 07.OL.2025 issued by the respondent No.2-Regionat Manager, TGSRTC, Nizamabad. In view of the fact as borne on record that the proceedings of the respondent

¶46

¶47

SN,J wp,3969-2025

¶48

No.2 dated^{07-OL'2O25had been issued in pursuance to} the^{petitioner approachingthis Court by filing the present} writ^{petition, a reasonableperiodof one (O1) week from} the date of^{receipt of a copy of this order is granted to the} petitioner to^{pursue the petitioner's remedies'The} respondents^{are directed not to take any coercivesteps} against the^{petitioner for a period of one (O1) week from} the date of^{receiptof a copy of this order to enable the} petitioner to^{pursuethe remediesas are availableto the} petitioner'against^{the order of the 2nd respondent dated} 07.OL.2O25.^{However, there shall be no order as to costs'}

¶49

Asa sequel, the^{miscellaneous petitions'if} any^{pending, in the Writ Petition shallalsostand closed'}

¶50

SD/.K.SREERAM^{A MURTHY} ASSI^TNTREGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY/'

ECTION^OFFICER

To,

r,',"^{Ro ad r ran spo rt co rpo ratio n'B u s}

¶55

, I[: J:i:ft+BgI ["":,S: r-r13[%'#

¶56

The^{Regional Manager' TGSRTC' Nizamabad' Nizamabad District'}

¶57

The^{Depot Manager' TGSRTC' Bansada Depot' Kamareddy District'}

¶58

One^{CC to SRI MOHDMOIN AHMED OUADRI' Advocate' IOPUCI}

¶59

One^{CCto SRI R'ANURAG' (SC FORTSRTC)' [OPUCI}

¶60

Two^{CD Copies} BSI(BSK \r

-t

HIGH COURT

DATE D: 1 310212025

CC TODAY

1HE SI4r e
o 3
a- $
J
.J r_i
.) 19 ilAH 2m
'_

¶66

ORDER

¶67

WP.No.3969 of 2025

¶68

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS tL \q 3 l-,---

¶69

Md. Saleem v. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Saleem v. 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

Rathlavath Srinu Vs The State of Telangana

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Vs The Assistant Divisional Engineer

Sri. Rajesh Jain Vs The State of Telangana

Singareni Coal Mines Labour Union Vs The State of Telangana

Mangali Sailu Vs Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Eskilla Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana