Telangana High Court

Kusumpudi Ravindra vs The Telangana State Road ... on 17 August, 2021

Bench: Hima Kohli, B.Vijaysen Reddy

Item No.7

      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                    AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
                           W.A.No.353 of 2020

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.     The present appeal is directed against an order dated 31.08.2020

passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by

the appellant/writ petitioner for declaring the action of the respondents

No.2 and 3/Corporation in permitting alleged illegal occupation of

open space in the RTC complex between shop No.17 allotted to the

appellant/writ petitioner and shop No.18 allotted to the private

respondent No.5, as illegal and issue directions to remove the said

encroachment.

2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has dismissed

the writ petition on the ground that just as the appellant/writ petitioner

had availed of the benefit of regularisation for the extra space

occupied by him in terms of the Letter dated 23.05.2015 whereby,

notices were issued to all the 58 DOT stalls for regularisation of the

additional space occupied by the licensees unauthorisedly on payment

of additional licence fee, the private respondent No.5 had also availed

of the said benefit by requesting the competent authority to regularise

the additional space occupied by her. Thereafter, the respondent No.5

had executed a Supplementary Agreement dated 06.07.2020 with the

respondents No.2 and 3/Corporation on paying the amounts as

demanded. The court noticed that the Deed of Licence executed in

favour of allottees like the appellant herein clearly stated that the

Corporation had the right to allot shops for similar business under the

scheme for "NON EXCLUSIVE BASIS" in a particular bus-stand. As

a result, though the appellant/writ petitioner was initially allotted the

shop for purposes of running fancy and kirana business, the same was

subsequently changed to medical and general store. Similarly,

permission was granted to the respondent No.5 to change the business

to a medical and general store. Thus, there was a business rivalry

between the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.5. Not

finding any merit in the writ petition, the same was dismissed.

3. Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the

appellant/writ petitioner states that the learned Single Judge has failed

to deal with the main concern of the appellant/writ petitioner i.e.,

regularisation of illegal encroachment of the open space by the

respondent No.5; that the respondents No.2 and 3/Corporation could

not have regularised the open space in favour of the respondent No.5;

and that regularisation of the space adjoining the shop of the

appellant/writ petitioner had to be treated on a different footing

vis-a-vis regularisation of the open space in favour of the respondent

No.5, as it cannot be treated as 'adjoining space'.

4. Mr. Mayur Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents No.2

and 3/Corporation opposes the present appeal and supports the

impugned judgment. He states that the appellant/writ petitioner has

approached the court with unclean hands and deliberately withheld

material information. He refers to the Notice dated 17.08.2015

addressed by the respondents No.2 and 3 to the appellant/writ

petitioner informing him that notices had been issued by the authority

to all the DOT stalls, Sathupally Bus Station, vide Letter dated

23.05.2015 for payment of additional licence fee for regularisation of

additional space occupied by the licensees unauthorisedly. Based on

the said decision, the appellant/writ petitioner had applied for

regularisation of which permission was duly granted to him. As a

result, the appellant/writ petitioner was permitted to pay a sum of

Rs.1,68,518/- for the additional space occupied by him at stall No.17.

It is stated that the aforesaid letter was suppressed by the

appellant/writ petitioner and he is no better placed than the respondent

No.5 who had also requested for a similar regularisation, which was

granted in her favour. There was no discrimination by the

respondents No.2 and 3/Corporation against the appellant/writ

petitioner. Once the open space was regularised in favour of the

appellant/writ petitioner, there was no good reason not to do so on a

request made by the respondent No.5 and other similarly placed

stallholders. Learned counsel states that this is only a case of business

rivalry, as both the appellant/writ petitioner and the respondent No.5

are in the same line of trade.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

parties and perused the impugned judgment wherein, the learned

Single Judge has made the following observations:-

"9. From the above pleadings, it is not in dispute that both the petitioner and the 5th respondent have participated in the tender issued by the respondent corporation for allotment of shops under DOT scheme. The petitioner was successful bidder in respect of Shop No.17 and the 5th respondent was successful bidder in Shop No. 18. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner and the 5th respondent have availed the benefit of change of their business from the competent authority i.e. Tender Committee consisting of the Regional Manager, Khammam, DVM, Khammam and AO, Khammam. It is a1so not in dispute that the petitioner has occupied open space and requested the Tender Committee to regularize the same. The 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 17.08.2015 regularizing the additional space occupied by the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has also availed the benefit of regularization for the space occupied by the petitioner.

10. The 5th respondent has also requested the competent authority to regularize additional space of 204.75 sq. ft occupied by her. On consideration of the same, the competent authority i.e. Tender Committee has accorded permission for regularization of the said open space. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent has informed about the same to the 3rd respondent and requested the 3rd respondent to take action accordingly and direct the 5th respondent for execution of supplementary agreement by collecting a1l dues upto date etc. Accordingly, a supplementary agreement dated 06.O7.2O2O was entered by the respondent corporation with the 5th respondent on the specific terms and conditions mentioned therein.

11. In the Deed of License, there is a clause for change of business and the Tender Committee has right to accord the said permission. There is also a clause in the Deed of License that the corporation has right to allot shops are for similar business

under the scheme for 'NON EXCLUSIVE BASIS' in a particular bus-stand. It is also contended by the petitioner that the respondent corporation has accorded permission for change of business to the 5th respondent i.e. Medical and General Stores. The petitioner is also running Medical and General Stores, as such there would be competition from the 5th respondent to the petitioner since both of them are in the very same business."

6. We find sound logic in the aforesaid reasoning given by the

learned Single Judge for dismissing the writ petition filed by the

appellant/writ petitioner. The respondents No.2 and 3/Corporation

took a policy decision to regularise the open spaces adjoining the

stalls. Having done so when it came to the appellant/writ petitioner,

who applied under the scheme, he cannot raise a grievance that the

same benefit should be denied to the respondent No.5, who is

similarly placed. The dispute raised by the appellant/writ petitioner is

an outcome of a business rivalry between the parties, both of whom

are in the same trade.

7. The present appeal is found to be devoid of merits and is

accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications, if any.