ORDER

Heard Sri Vijay Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. In view of the nature of relief sought by the petitioner, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage dispensing with notice to respondent No.3.

3. This Writ Petition is filed to declare sub-leasing of the Hyderabad Metro Rail properties to third party agency as illegal and contrary to the Concessionaire agreement dated 04.09.2010 between respondent Nos.1 and 2.

4. Petitioner is a practicing advocate. According to him, on 23.10.2024, he travelled from Miyapur to MGBS to come to this High Court. Third party agency collected an amount of Rs.25 from the petitioner towards parking charges. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 cannot sub-lease the properties and the agency cannot collect the money.

5. Perusal of the concessionaire agreement dated 04.09.2010 would reveal that it was entered into between the erstwhile Government of Andhra Pradesh and respondent No.3. There is no provision for collection of parking charges. Respondent No.2 is not a party to the said concessionaire agreement.

6. Referring to the response given by respondent No.2 to the mail sent by the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 let out the parking area to the third parties and third parties collecting the charges illegally. Therefore, according to the petitioner, respondent No.2 cannot sub-lease the properties of Hyderabad Metro Rail Limited to the third parties. The same is contrary to the concessionaire agreement dated 04.09.2010. Therefore, petitioner is seeking direction to respondent No.1 to take action as per Clause 35 of the Agreement and to direct cease and desist from sub-leasing of the metro properties to third parties. He is also seeking imposition of costs on respondent No.2 at Rs.25,00,000/- to be paid to the Legal Services Authority of High Court.

7. Clause 35 of the Concessionaire Agreement, dated 04.09.2010 deals with the compensation for breach of agreement. Petitioner failed to establish the breach committed by respondent No.2. In fact, respondent No.2 is not a party to the said Concessionaire Agreement, dated 04.09.2010. Therefore, the question of respondent No.2 sub-leasing the subject property to the third parties as alleged by the petitioner does not arise.

8. Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, on instructions, would submit that respondent No.2 is not a party to the said Concessionaire Agreement, dated 04.09.2010 and that they are nothing to do with the receipts and mails sent by the petitioner. In contractual matters, petitioner cannot file writ petition like this. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable.

9. As discussed supra, petitioner is a practicing as an advocate. Without verifying the documents and without doing research, he has filed the present writ petition to declare the sub-leasing metro properties to the third parties as contrary to the Concessionaire Agreement, dated 04.09.2010. Petitioner failed to establish the alleged violation of the conditions of the Concessionaire Agreement, dated 04.09.2010. Without doing the said exercise and verifying the documents, petitioner can’t file the writ petition and seek imposition of Rs.25,00,000/- costs on respondent No.2. He has wasted the time of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner has to pay costs to the High Court Legal Services Authority. Thus, this Writ Petition is misconceived and it is liable to be dismissed with costs. Therefore, this Writ Petition is dismissed imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the petitioner payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order