THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.571 of 2022
JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Ms. Jyothi Eswar Gogineni, learned counsel for
the appellant and Mr. N.Praveen Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
(TSRTC) appearing for respondents No.2
and 3.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.No.27097 of 2021 filed by the appellant as the writ petitioner.
3. Appellant had filed the related writ petition taking exception to the proceedings dated 11.10.2021 terminating the contract granted by respondents No.2 and 3 to the appellant for display of advertisements on stall side pillars in Mahatma Gandhi Bus Station and display of 2 advertisements through fixation of backlit boards and platform destination boards on platform pillars in the said bus station. According to the appellant, following the tender process, appellant emerged as the successful bidder and was awarded the above contract for a period of five years from 01.07.2017 to 30.06.2022. Appellant entered into agreements with respondent No.2 on 27.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 respectively. During the contract period employees of respondents No.2 and 3 went on a strike from 05.10.2019 to 25.11.2019. As a result, not a single bus operated during that period. Further, because of the lockdown imposed on account of COVID-19 pandemic, transport operations came to a halt from 22.03.2020. This also affected the contract of the appellant. Notwithstanding the same, respondents No.2 and 3 had issued notice to the appellant demanding payment of licence fee from October, 2019 to January, 2020 and again from March, 2020 to August, 2021. Appellant submitted representations contending that licence fee could not have been levied for the strike period and also because of the pandemic and resultant lockdown for which there was no transport 3 service for the said period affecting the contract of the appellant. However, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 23.09.2021 had informed the appellant that its request for waiver of licence fee for the strike period from 05.10.2019 to 25.11.2019 was rejected. Insofar the dues for COVID-19 period, it was mentioned that Government was seized of the matter; once the Government takes a decision regarding licence fee payable during the COVID-19 period, the same would be implemented; if any exemption/concession is given by the Government, the licence fee so paid would be adjusted against future payable amount. Appellant's request to respondent No.2 to await decision of the Government was not considered. Instead, impugned proceedings were issued.
4. Aggrieved, the related writ petition came to be filed.
5. Learned Single Judge had passed an interim order on 08.11.2021. I.A.No.2 of 2021 was filed by respondents No.2 and 3 for vacating the interim order. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Single Judge vide the order dated 19.05.2022 held as follows:
4
"The above said contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not deserve any consideration since the decision to grant any exemption of license fee for the Covid-19 period is a policy matter that the Government has to take. Moreover, the licence agreement entered by the petitioner is with the respondent Corporation, which is an independent organization. It is pertinent to mention that the Corporation has taken various steps for mitigating the hardships of the licensees by extending the period for payment of licence fee, to pay the licence fee in instalments and also extending the license period, provided, the licensee comply with the orders of the Corporation. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot compel the Corporation or the Government to pass any orders in favour of the licensees as it is the policy matter of the Government/Corporation to decide as to whether to provide any other benefits to the licensees or not and therefore no Mandamus can be issued by this Court to extend any benefit or incentive to the licensees. The licensee is bound by the terms and conditions of the license agreement and therefore it cannot avoid its obligations and duties envisaged under the contract. If the petitioner is aggrieved, its remedy is to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief."
6. Thus, learned Single Judge took the view that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ Court would not be justified in issuing a 5 mandamus to respondents No.2 and 3 to waive off licence fee. Holding that appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the licence agreement, learned Single Judge took the view that if the appellant felt aggrieved, its remedy is to approach the civil Court seeking appropriate relief. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India1, whereafter learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition giving liberty to the appellant to approach the civil Court, if so advised.
7. We do not find any error or infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the contract agreement dated 27.10.2017 entered into by the appellant and Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) there is a clause, being clause No.45, which says that in case advertisements are not displayed due to electricity breakdown/bundhs/agitations/other internal or external factors, for a particular period or periods, TSRTC would not be liable for any loss or damage caused to the advertising 1 (2015) 7 SCC 728 6 contractor. However, we need not delve on this issue in view of clauses 52 and 53 of the said agreement which say that in case of any dispute or difference arising on the terms and conditions of the tender or contract, the decision of the Managing Director, TSRTC would be binding; however, if such dispute persists, the Courts at Hyderabad and Secunderabad would have the jurisdiction.
8. We are of the view that the above two clauses would have to be read in conjunction with the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge. In matters of contract or enforcement of contractual obligations, the High Court would ordinarily not entertain a petition in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such matters are best left to be adjudicated by the dispute resolution forum as provided under the contract or by the civil Court.
9. In the above context, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, we decline to entertain the writ appeal.
7
10. Writ appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ ______________________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J 05.09.2022 vs