Back
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 117
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
A. Rajender & Another – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Transport Department & others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 15200 of 2025
Decided On : 09-01-2026
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : VLADIMEER KHATOON
For the Respondent: GP FOR TRANSPORT
Court ruled that failure to comply with contractual obligations and judicial directives bars entitlement to equitable relief, confirming the validity of license termination and subsequent tender processes.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Writ Petition challenging the issuance of e-Tender Notification during subsistence of a valid license - Petitioners aggrieved by the termination of license and demands for encroachment charges - Petitioners did not submit explanation within the court-ordered timeframe, leading to termination being justified. (Paras 5-7)
(B) Contract Law - Compliance with contract terms - Petitioners engaged in unauthorized occupation, leading to multiple notices for encroachment - Court affirmed that parties must adhere to terms of Deed of License and statutory obligations before seeking equitable relief. (Paras 6-10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners were granted a 20-year license for shops/stalls under the DOT Scheme, facing termination and encroachment allegations. Court found their failure to comply with processes warranted dismissal of their claims.
Findings of Court:
Respondents’ actions were justified due to Petitioners’ non-compliance and violations of the Deed of License.
Issues: Whether termination of license was justified and if the issuance of e-Tender notifications breached the contract.
Ratio Decidendi: License was effectively terminated due to non-compliance with court directives and license stipulations; equitable relief denies when in default.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. license granted under dot scheme. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding license validity and tender legality. (Para 3 , 5 , 9) |
| 3. court's analysis on compliance and claims. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 4. final dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.
This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 6th Respondent in issuing Letter dated 14.05.2025 seeking to implement e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 in respect of DOT Shops/Stalls No 16, 17 and 18 situated in Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, despite subsistence of a valid and unexpired Deed of License granted in favour of Petitioners for a fixed period of twenty years and despite pendency and culmination of earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties concerning the very same subject matter. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the said action as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms of the Deed of License, and for consequential reliefs.
2. Petitioners state that Petitioner No.1 is an individual engaged in lawful commercial activity and is the successful licensee under the Deposit, Operate and Transfer (DOT) Scheme in respect of Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18 situated at Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, and Petitioner No.2 is similarly placed and jointly holds the said license along with Petitioner No.1.
2.1. It is stated that Corporation, in furtherance of its statutory functions, invited bids for construction and operation of shops/stalls in the vacant land available at Jagtiyal Bus Station under the Deposit, Operate and Transfer (DOT) Scheme, by collecting non-refundable deposits from intending business persons and stipulating payment of a fixed monthly license fee, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Deed of License. Pursuant to the said notification, they submitted bids for DOT Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18 located at Jagtiyal Bus Station, offering to pay a monthly license fee of Rs.5,000/- per stall in addition to a non-refundable deposit of Rs.2,40,000/-. The said offer was accepted and communicated to Petitioners vide letters dated 08.01.2015. Pursuant to the said acceptance, Petitioners deposited Rs.2,40,000/- towards non-refundable deposit, which, as per the terms of the scheme, does not carry any interest.
2.2. It is further stated that a Deed of License was thereafter executed in favour of Petitioners granting them license to construct, operate and conduct business in the said DOT Shops/Stalls for a fixed and non-extendable period of twenty (20) years commencing from 09.02.2015 and ending on 08.02.2035. The Deed of License specifically stipulates that upon expiry of the said license period, the Petitioners shall vacate the shops and hand over vacant possession to the Respondent Corporation and that no extension of the license period shall be granted beyond the stipulated term.
2.3. Petitioners state that while they were carrying on their business strictly in accordance with the terms of the Deed of License, the 5th Respondent issued Notice-II dated 15.09.2021 alleging that a committee comprising the 6th Respondent, the Deputy Executive Engineer (C), Karimnagar and the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Jagtiyal, had inspected stalls and found that Petitioners had allegedly encroached additional areas measuring 232.75 sq.ft, 231.16 sq.ft and 231.16 sq.ft respectively. Petitioners specifically contended that inspection report dated 31.08.2021, which formed the basis of the said notice, was never furnished to them. The said notice directed Petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached area forthwith or to pay additional license fee, failing which termination of license and forfeiture of the non-refundable deposit was threatened.
2.4. It is stated that thereafter, another notice dated 05.07.2022 was issued reiterating the very same allegations. The Regional Tender Committee convened a meeting on 22.06.2022
