Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 13337
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
N.V. Shravan Kumar, J
Karangula Abhishek Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.10453 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ,
For the Respondents: Imran Khan
Courts exercise self-restraint in interfering with contractual and tender-related matters under Article 226, especially when the petitioner lacks a legal right due to license expiration and fails to demonstrate bonafide conduct by disobeying prior court directions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Contractual matter - Petitioner challenging notice to vacate premises after expiry of license period - Petitioner failed to comply with conditional order of the Court - Conduct of the petitioner found to be not bonafide and in willful disobedience of the court’s earlier order. (Paras 12, 13 and 18)
(B) Tender Process - Award of contract - Principles of judicial review - Courts to exercise restraint in commercial/contractual matters - Interference only if the decision is vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness or arbitrariness - Public exchequer interest to be kept in mind. (Paras 14 and 17)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in operating a gymnasium and swimming pool facility at a municipal park under a license agreement, challenged a notice directing him to vacate the premises upon the expiry of the license period. During the proceedings, the petitioner agreed to vacate the premises by a specific date and pay admitted dues, but subsequently failed to file the required affidavit of undertaking or fully comply with the payment directions of the Court.
Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the petitioner lacked any legal right to continue in possession after the license expiration. Given the petitioner's failure to comply with the conditional order dated 07.04.2026, including the failure to file an affidavit to vacate, the Court found the petitioner’s conduct to be willful disobedience, thereby denying any relief.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has a legal right to continue in occupation of the premises post-expiry of the license and whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to interfere in a contractual dispute where the petitioner has disobeyed previous court directions.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a petitioner seeks discretionary relief under Article 226 in a contractual matter, failure to exhibit bonafide conduct and adherence to previous judicial orders disentitles the petitioner from invoking the Court’s jurisdiction, especially when the contract term has expired.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of dispute regarding license expiry and failure to comply with previous court-directed undertakings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. court’s refusal to interfere in commercial contracts while emphasizing judicial restraint and the consequences of willful disobedience. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
ORDER:
1. This writ petition is filed seeking following prayer:
“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring Notice No.603/LF-Melkote/UF/HMDA/25-26 dated 24.03.2026 (served on the petitioner on 02.04.2026) issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the Gymnasium and Swimming Pool at Dr.G.S.Melkote Park, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad within seven (7) days as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, violative of the principles of natural justice, and contrary to the respondents’s own conduct in continuously accepting licence fees, and a consequential direction seeking to set-aside the said notice and permit the petitioner to continue the operation and maintenance of the said premises till a fresh tender is lawfully finalized and a successful bidder is appointed…...”
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 24.03.2026 issued by the 4th respondent served on the petitioner on 02.04.2026 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises namely Gymnasium and Swimming Pool at Dr. G.S.Melkote Park, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad, within (07) days. The contents of the impugned notice dated 24.03.2026 refers to the license agreement dated 23.03.2017, wherein it is stated that as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, the license period expired on 31.01.2025 and that the petitioner was not making payments as per the terms and conditions of the license as such respondent No.2 reserves right to initiate action for recovery of huge amounts due and payable by the petitioner. It is further stated that despite expiry of License period, the petitioner had not vacated and handed over the possession of the above mentioned premises to HMDA and is continuing to occupy the same unauthorizedly as such in view of the expiry of License Period, the petitioner was directed to vacate the premises with all his belongings and handover the premises to HMDA within (07) days.
3. The brief facts as stated in this writ petition are that the petitioner is the sole proprietor of Praxix Fitness Hub, a proprietorship concern engaged in providing swimming and gymnasium amenities, situated at Dr. G.S.Melkote Park, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as “premises”). The respondent No.4 in 2016 has issued a Tender Document inviting bids for the grant of licence rights and execution of a licence agreement for installation and maintenance of the Gymnasium and Swimming Pool at Dr.G.S.Melkote Park, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred as “Subject Works”). The petitioner was declared as successful bidder and a licence agreement dated 23.03.2017 was executed between respondent No.4 and petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the various clauses mentioned in the e-procurement platform in the tender document. Clause 4.33 of the Tender Document deals with License Period and License Fee and the same is extracted for reference:
“4.33. License Period and License Fee
a. License period shall be for a period of Five (05) years from the date of License agreement.
b. Upset Price fixed by the HMDA does not include any applicable Taxes. However, the Licensee shall pay the License Fee Plus its applicable taxes.
c. The Lincesee shall have a license fee free period for a maximum of two (02) months from the date of license agreement.
d. First year license fee shall be the price quoted by the bidder in its financial bid. There shall be an increment of 0.5% in the license fee every year over the previous year i.e., 2nd year license fee is 05% over and above the license fee of first year
