THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief:

“…to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the 2nd respondent herein in not issuing NOC (No Objection Certificate) to the petitioner buses bearing Nos. TS 26T 6668 and TS 26T 6670 w.e.f. date of issuing NOC certificate is bad, arbitrary and illegal by setting aside letter no.T1/359(19 & 23)/2019-RM : WL dt 25-9-2024 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents 2 & 3 to issued NOC (No Objection Certificate) w.e.f. the date of issuing such certificate to the petitioner buses bearing Nos. TS 26T 6668 and TS 26T

6670 and pass…”

2. Heard Sri P. Venkateshwer Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri N. Chandra Sekhar, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of the Tender Notification dated 14.10.2019, the petitioner entered into an agreement with respondent No.2 on 11.03.2020, for operating the his bus bearing No.TS 26 T 6668 (Express) on route, Thorrur-Hyderabad. The said agreement was for a period of four years, commencing from 12.03.2020 to 11.03.2024, with a provision for extension of the said period, subject to fitness of the vehicle. Likewise, another agreement dated 11.03.2020, was executed for operating another bus bearing No.TS 26 T 6670 (Express), on route, Thorrur-Jagadgirigutta. Accordingly, the petitioner was operating his buses satisfactorily on the allotted route. However, both of his agreements was arbitrarily terminated by respondent No.2 vide orders dated 26.04.2022, on the alleged ground that the petitioner had submitted a fake insurance policy documents in respect of the said buses. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.Nos.24429 and 24496 of 2022 before this Court, which were allowed, vide orders dated 11.09.2023, setting aside the termination orders dated 26.04.2022 issued by respondent No.2. As such, the respondents were duty-bound to permit the petitioner to operate the buses on the allotted route till the expiry of the agreement period. However, in spite of his requests, the petitioner was neither permitted to operate the buses nor was he provided with any information. As such, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 01.08.2024, seeking implementation of the aforesaid orders of this Court. Thereafter, respondent No.2 issued the impugned No-Objection Certificates dated

25.09.2024, in respect of the two buses.

4. It was further submitted that after the issuance of the impugned NOCs, respondent No.5 addressed a letter to respondent No.2 on 13.11.2024, seeking clarification on the validity of agreement period, as to whether the said agreements remained valid until 11.03.2024 or

26.04.2022. Consequently, vide letter dated 20.11.2024, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.5 that the petitioner’s buses were utilized up to 26.04.2022, as such, the agreements were valid from 12.03.2020 to 26.04.2022 only. It was contended that the said clarification is erroneous and contrary to the orders of this Court dated 11.09.2023, whereby, the termination orders were set aside, and in spite of the same, respondent No.2 himself did not permit the petitioner to operate the buses in compliance of the orders of this Court. It was also submitted that respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated 23.04.2024, arbitrarily clarifying that the validity of agreements in respect of both the buses had expired on 11.03.2024, and that the petitioner is not entitled for further extension of two years. In the said letter, it was also stated that the petitioner was instructed to produce his buses for fitness before the Vehicle Inspection Committee. However, no such communication was ever received by the petitioner. Therefore