Back
2018 Supreme(AP) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. UMA DEVI, JJ.
V. Praveen - Appellant
Vs.
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation rep., by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and another - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 846 of 2018
Decided On : 09-08-2018
For the Appellant : Sri C. Ramachandra Raju
For the Respondents: Sri G. Vidyasagar, Sri A. Ravi Babu
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 21 – Letters Patent – Clause 15 – Action of Divisional Manager unjust, arbitrary – Appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, against order passed by Single Judge in I.A. in W.P. – Appellant herein is petitioner in Writ Petition – He sought a mandamus to declare action of Divisional Manager, in issuing proceedings, as contrary to order passed by this Court in W.A., unjust, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India – By way of interim relief, the appellant-writ petitioner sought suspension of the proceedings issued by the Divisional Manager – On I.A., in W.P., being dismissed, appellant-writ petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of Letters Patent – Held, Court consider it to appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct that, in case the appellant-writ petitioner approaches the Divisional Manager, TSRTC, within ten days from today in order to effect alterations in the license deed to bring it in conformity with the terms and conditions of the original tender, the respondent-corporation shall not take any coercive measures against him during this period – Needless to state that, in case the petitioner fails to do so, it is open to the respondent-corporation to proceed and take action against him after the aforesaid period of ten days – Court must record our concern of the manner in which officials of the respondent-corporation have examined the appellants tender for both the stalls – Not only have they failed to detect the variance in Annexure-I submitted by the appellant-writ petitioner at the stage of tender scrutiny of both his tenders, they have also failed to notice, or have consciously chosen to ignore, the variation between the tender submitted by the appellant and the license deeds executed in his favour – Respondent-corporation shall conduct a detailed investigation, identify officer/officers responsible for these lapses, take disciplinary action against them, and submit an action taken report to the Single Judge before whom W.P. is pending – Appeal Dismissed (Paras 57, 59, 60)
Ramesh Ranganathan, J.
1. This appeal is preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in I.A. No.1 of 2018 in W.P. No. 19378 of 2018 dated 12.06.2018. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the Writ Petition. He sought a mandamus to declare the action of the Divisional Manager, Nalgonda, in issuing proceedings dated 01.06.2018, as contrary to the order passed by this Court in W.A. Nos. 1519, 1520 and 1521 of 2017 dated 20.10.2017, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, violative of principles of natural justice, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. By way of interim relief, the appellant-writ petitioner sought suspension of the proceedings dated 01.06.2018 issued by the Divisional Manager. On I.A.No.1 of 2018, in W.P.No.19378 of 2018, being dismissed, the appellant-writ petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
2. Facts, to the extent necessary, are that, pursuant to tenders being invited for allotment of stalls in various bus stations of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation in Nalgonda District, the appellant-writ petitioner, on his being found to be the successful tenderer for two stalls in two different bus stations, was awarded licences for a period of five years from 21.07.2016 to 20.07.2021. He was awarded a license for running a fresh fruit stall at Suryapet Hi-tech bus station on payment of a monthly licence fee of Rs.86,516/-. He was also awarded a license for running a sweet stall at Suryapet Ordinary bus station, for a period of 5 years from 21.07.2016 till 20.07.2021, on payment of a monthly licence fee of Rs.19,172/-.
3. The license deed dated 21.07.2016, executed by the respondent-corporation in favour of the appellant in relation to Suryapet Hi-tech bus station, records the appellant having agreed to take up the contract for running a fresh fruit juice, mineral water bottle business in the stall at Suryapet Hi-tech bus station on payment of the license fee of Rs.86,516/- per annum to the Corporation for five years. Clause 9 of the license deed relates to the nature of business and, thereunder, the licensee (the appellant) was required to carry on the same business which was mentioned in the tender notification, and for which the license was issued; representations, for change in the nature of the business, by the licensee would not be entertained; and if the licensee was found doing business in a stall, other than that stipulated in the deed of licence, and if the licensee sold items other than those specified in the allotment order or as recorded in the deed of licence, the licence was liable for termination duly forfeiting the security deposit. Under Clause 45 of the licence deed, the Corporation reserved the right to modify any condition/conditions of the agreement, and to incorporate fresh clauses. Clause 45 required the licencee to enter into a fresh deed of licence at his/her own cost. Enclosed to the licence deed was an Annexure wherein details of the nature of business/businesses, and the permitted items for sale, were detailed.
4. As shall be referred to hereinafter, the items permitted to be sold, in terms of the Annexure to the licence deed, is at variance with even what the appellant had specified in Annexure I of his tender application which, in turn, differed from the nature of business, and items to be sold, as per Annexure I of the original tender conditions.
5. The licence deed dated 21.07.2016, in so far as it related to Suryapet ordinary bus station, permitted the appellant to carry on sweet stall business thereat. Under clause 45 of this deed of licence also, the respondent-Corporation reserved the right to modify any condition/conditions of the agreement, and to incorporate fresh clauses; and the licencee was required to enter into a fresh license deed at his/her own cost. The Annexure of the deed of the license deed dated 21.07.2016, with respect
