Minimal interference by courts in tender matters unless authorities' orders are found to be unreasonable, harsh, or illegal.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings No.P4/122(22)/2020-R.R., dated 02.09.2021, issued by respondent No.3 (for short, ‘the impugned order), canceling allotment order of the petitioner with regard to Stall No.6, situate at Dilsukhnagar Bus Station, Hyderabad.

3. Petitioner contends that he was allotted Stall No.6 (Tea & Snacks) (Open 6x6) at Dilsukhnagar Bus Station vide allotment order dated 05.12.2020, in pursuance of Tender notification dated 16.10.2020, for the purpose of conducting business in selling tea and snacks on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs.17,200/-(Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred only).

4. Petitioner contends that on verification of the said premises, it was found that the said stall is located adjacent to gents’ toilets and due to the foul smell emanating from the toilets, customers frequenting the stall of the petitioner feel inconvenient which prevented them from visiting the stall, thereby causing loss to the petitioner.

5. Petitioner further contends that he had requested the respondent-authorities for change of location of stall to some other place, and in that connection, he had also approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.14190 of 2021 which was disposed of on 28-06-2021, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents, and upon receipt of such representation, the respondents to consider the same within a period of one (01) week.

6. Petitioner further contends that thereafter he submitted a fresh representation dated 28.06.2021 to the respondents, but the same was rejected on 27.07.2021 by the respondents stating that request of the petitioner to change the location of the stall to some other area is not possible.

7. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.19259 of 2021 challenging the above rejection letter dated 27.07.2021 of the respondents, which is still pending.

8. Petitioner further contends that the official respondents without verification of the factual position, issued the impugned order in a mechanical manner; that there are plenty of open places within the premises of the Bus Station, but the authorities are not considering the request of the petitioner.

9. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the representation dated 28.06.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-authorities, respondents have issued the impugned order whereby the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled and forfeited the security deposit into the Corporation; and though the official respondents issued a fresh tender notification later, nobody participated because of the location of the said stall.

11. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel, appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent-Corporation, vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the stall which has been allotted to the petitioner has been in existence since more than a decade; that prior to the allotment of the stall to the petitioner, the said stall was in the very same place and there was no inconvenience caused to any of the passengers / commuters; and that the earlier owner used to conduct business in the very same place. He also contended that petitioner was given an opportunity for verifying the factual location of the premises, but the petitioner did not do so; and having participated in the tender notification, petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the tender notification. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the authority concerned on the representation submitted by the petitioner, which reads as under:

“The petitioner