Dismissed

V. Veeranarayana v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC5 Aug 2025WP/928/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A canteen licensee challenged TGSRTC's allotment of an adjacent fast-food stall space at Jadcherla Bus Station to another vendor, claiming violation of a circular, prior interim directions and tender norms. The court found the stall was allotted through proper tender and that the petitioner's own agreement permitted further licences, so it dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

V. Veeranarayana Vs State of Telangana — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

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

¶3

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

¶7

Between:

¶8

V. Veeranarayana, S/o. China Jejaiah, Aged- 40 years, Rl/o. H.No.12-10587/86, Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

¶11

State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TGSRTC), Rep., by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Regional Manager, TGSRTC, Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

¶14

The Divisional Manager, TGSRTC, Mahabubnagar Division, Mahabubnagar Town and District.

¶15

The Depot Manager, TGSRTC, Jadcherla Bus Depot, Jadcherla Mandai, Mahabubnagar District.

¶16

N. Mithun Rao, S/o N. Sridhar Rao, Aged about 43 years, Occ- Business, Fl/o H.No.157/9, Plot No.3 Vahini Nagar Lane 1, Sikh Road, Secunderabad, Thirumalgiri, Hyderabad.

¶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 Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents No.2 to 5 to arrange and allow open space of 10 X 10 beside controller room at Jadicharla Bus Station in violation of circular No.31/2017-OPD (M & C) dated 0211112017 under the guise of a compromise entered into between the Respondent No.6 and the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 before the Lok Adhalat in W.P.No.32934 ot 2018 to circumvent to the

) !t

I 1

i t i i

circular instructions of the Respondent No.2 in above stated circular particularly under point Vll(1) and other conditions therein, and interim directions of this Honble court in w.P.No.32934 of 2018 and W.P.No.15931 of 2o24and further in violation of article 14, 19(1XG) and 300-A of Constitution of lndia, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and abuse of the process of court.

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to direct the respondents not to permit/ allow any third party including 6th respondent from carrying any business in fast food by setting up a fast food stall or othenryise at Jadcherla Bus Station, Mahabubnagar District, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶26

Counsel for the petitioner: SRt p.RAMULU

¶27

counsel for the Respondent No.l: Gp FoR TRANSPORT

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5: SRt R.ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC

¶29

counsel for the Respondent No.6: sRt C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU

¶30

The Court made the fottowing: ORDER

¶31

i ti

¶32

THE HOIT'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH

¶33

ORDER:

¶34

The pefitioner charenges the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in allotting a 1ox10 feet space beside the controlrer room at Jadcherra Bus Station to a third party for a fast food star. This was done in vioration of circular No.3 r /2017-opD(M&c), date d o2.11.2077 and interim orders in W.p.No.3 2934 of 2[tg, and directions in w'p'No' 1593 1 0f 2024. The space was cleared without forowing proper procedure and given to a party chosen without any tender, ignoring the petitioner,s representation. The new stall has no kitchen and seils outsourced food, directly competing with petitioner's canteefl, which operates as per rules and pays a high license fee of Rs'4,52,22g/-- This action is unfair, illegal, and has caused serious loss to petitioner, violating principres of natural justice.

¶35

2' Heard Sri Ramulu, rearned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing counsel for TGsR?c for respondent Nos.2 to 5. perused the record.

¶36

3' Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 fired counter affidavit statitg that petitioner,s grievance is baseless. He further states that futitioner has no valid complaint, &S the lack of a kitchen

¶37

2 NBK,J W.P. No.928^{of 2025}

¶38

¶39

facility in the fast food stall does not violate an1' rule, especially when Respondent No.6 is willing to run the stall without^kitchen. He claims that petitioner is only objecting to the allotment^{in order} to eliminate business competition under false^pretexts. It is^stated that the allegation of being allotted the stall through a^{"pick and} choose" method without a tender^process is^{comp.letely false. It is} further statecl that he was allotted^{the stall as the highest bidder in} a proper tender^{process. The claim} that^{Respondents 2 to 5 entered} into a shady compromise with him^{is also denied as baseless and} unsustainable. Therefore, it is^{stated that the rvrit petitionis} without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, for^{respondents 2 to} 5, filed a counter affidavit^{relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble} Supreme Court in Joshl^{Technologies Interna,tlono,l Inc. V.} tlnion of India & Others.rr^{which states that writ jurisdiction is} not the right'*,ay to enforce^{contractual rights when there are other} effective remedies available.^{It is stated that any disputes related to} the petitioner's license agreement^{shouldbe resolvedin a Civil} Court, not before this Court.^{Furthermore, Tender Clause 2l} clearly allows^'ISRTC to^{grantlicenses to multiple vendorsfor the}

'(zors)^{7 scc728}

i t,...

N8K,J W.P. No.928 of^202S

¶45

¶46

.^,

¶47

same type of business. The petitioner's agreement,^specifically Clause 3O, confirms that the licensee cannot object to additional allotments made by TSRTC for similar businesses. Therefore, petitioner's claims go against the terms of the agreement he signed and must be rejected.

¶48

Considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel and material on record, this Court finds that fast^{food stall} was allotted through a proper tender process. The^petitioner's complaints about competition and the lack of a kitchen are^not valid. It may be noted that petitioner agreed in the contract^that TSRTC can give licenses to others for similar businesses.^Therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶49