IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2026 in/and WRIT PETITION No.40214 of 2025

12^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

Md. Faisal Siddiquy.

…Petitioner AND Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and two others.

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri U. Shanthi Bhushan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. The writ petition is filed seeking a direction more particularly in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant license in favour of the petitioner for running Chinese fast food Centre at stall No.Open Space-8 (‘OS-8’) at Nirmal Bus Station, in accordance with tender notification dated 23.07.2025 issued by the respondent No.2.

Case of the petitioner:

3. The background facts of the case are that respondent No.2 issued a tender notification dated 23.07.2025 calling for tenders for running any permitted single business except supermarket in stall No.OS-8 in Nirmal Bus Station. The petitioner submitted his tender for running a stall of Chinese fast food, which is a permitted business, by offering a sum of Rs.14,500/- as monthly license fee and paid earnest money deposit(EMD) of Rs.81,900/-. The respondents accepted the petitioner's tender and called for negotiations to enhance the offer. The petitioner agreed to enhance the offer from Rs.14,500/- to Rs.15,000/-. Apart from enhancement of the offer, the respondents started pressurizing the petitioner to accept to do any other business in stall No.OS-8. The petitioner borrowed money at high rate of interest for running a fast food center and also purchased necessary materials relating to Chinese fast food. The respondents are delaying issuance of an allotment letter for running the Chinese fast food stall. In the circumstances, petitioner submitted representation dated 13.10.2025 requesting for grant of license to run Chinese fast food centre. There was no response from the respondents, who were withholding the EMD for about five months. The petitioner has learnt that the owners of fast food stalls located outside the bus station were influencing the respondents not to award license for running a Chinese fast food stall, lest there might be competition to their food stalls. The respondents, in order to cater to their pressure, are demanding the petitioner to opt for some other business. The petitioner contends that when the tender notification categorically states that OS-8 is open for conducting any business except supermarket, the respondents to the contrary cannot demand him to do any other business other than running Chinese fast food stall. The act of respondent Nos.2 and 3 is arbitrary and hence sought direction to them to allot the OS-8 for running Chinese food stall. Case of the respondents:

4. The respondents opposed the writ petition alleging that subsequent to submission of tender by the petitioner, he was called for fixing of monthly rent by the tender committee on 11.09.2025. On said date, the petitioner proposed to establish a food joint in stall No.OS-8. The committee informed that already there is another food joint near stall No.OS-8 and the license fee paid by said food stall per month is Rs.1,57,500/-. In case the petitioner is willing to pay on par with said license fee, then stall No.OS-8 shall be allotted to the petitioner, whereas the petitioner offered only Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, the negotiations by the tender committee did not fructify resulting in rejection of the petitioner's proposal. The respondents admit that stall No.OS-8 was for running single business, in which previously a mee-seva center was running and before that photography service was running. There is no categorization for running Chinese fast food centre. About the tender committee proposing to the petitioner to take up any other business other than Chinese fast food, the respondents