THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

The petitioner challenges the action of Respondents 2 to 5 in allotting a 10x10 feet space beside the controller room at Jadcherla Bus Station to a third party for a fast food stall. This was done in violation of Circular No.31/2017-OPD(M&C), dated 02.11.2017 and interim orders in W.P.No.32934 of 2018, and directions in W.P.No.15931 of 2024. The space was cleared without following proper procedure and given to a party chosen without any tender, ignoring the petitioner’s representation. The new stall has no kitchen and sells outsourced food, directly competing with petitioner’s canteen, which operates as per rules and pays a high license fee of Rs.4,52,228/-. This action is unfair, illegal, and has caused serious loss to petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.

2. Heard Sri Ramulu, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for Respondent No.6 filed counter affidavit stating that petitioner’s grievance is baseless. He further states that petitioner has no valid complaint, as the lack of a kitchen facility in the fast food stall does not violate any 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 completely false. It is further stated 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 writ petition is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.

4. 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 Joshi Technologies International Inc. V. Union of India & Others.,, (2015) 7 SCC 728 which states that writ jurisdiction is not the right way to enforce contractual rights when there are other effective remedies available. It is stated that any disputes related to the petitioner’s license agreement should be resolved in a Civil Court, not before this Court. Furthermore, Tender Clause 21 clearly allows TSRTC to grant licenses to multiple vendors for the

same type of business. The petitioner’s agreement, specifically Clause 30, 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.

5. 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.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date: 05.08.2025 dgr