S. Ram Prakash, vs The Superintendent, Vocational ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 512 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 512 Tel
Judgement Date : 9 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

S. Ram Prakash, vs The Superintendent, Vocational ... on 9 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

   THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                             AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                         WRIT APPEAL No.231 of 2007

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

        The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

22.02.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.22440 of

2006.

        The      undisputed          facts     of    the     case     reveal    that   the

appellant/writ petitioner is a physically handicapped person and

he was allotted a place for establishing a telephone booth, vide

proceedings dated 20.06.1986. A specific condition was mentioned

in the allotment order that the appellant/writ petitioner shall

vacate the place within thirty days as and when the place is

needed.        The facts of the case further reveal that action was

initiated by the respondents/APSRTC for evicting the petitioner

and a civil suit in O.S.No.467 of 2003 was preferred by the

appellant/writ petitioner before the learned I Junior Civil Judge,

City Civil Court, Secunderabad. In the aforesaid civil suit, an

application was preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C.

and the same was dismissed by order dated 17.06.2003.

Challenging the same, the appellant/writ petitioner preferred

C.M.A.No.47 of 2003 before the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Secunderabad and the same was also dismissed by order

dated 16.12.2003. The petitioner/plaintiff finally preferred

C.R.P.No.179 of 2004 and this Court has passed the following

order:-

"Having heard both sides and perused the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the Courts below have not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. May be, the

petitioner is a physical handicapped person, but he is not entitled for a special treatment in allotment of space as they are all matters of public policy. Admittedly, a notice dated 2.6.1998 was issued to the petitioner directing him to vacate the said PCO and questioning the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.4497 of 2003. The said writ petition was dismissed on 17.3.2003. Therefore, the petitioner cannot squat on to create hurdles in the way of respondent-APSRTC. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs.

However, the respondent-APSRTC may continue the petitioner till the tenders are called for allotment of this particular space. If the petitioner is interested, he is at liberty to participate in the said tenders. Further, the petitioner shall give an undertaking stating that as and when tenders are finalized, he will vacate and deliver vacant possession of the premises to the respondent-APSRTC or he will enter fresh agreement, if he succeeds in the tenders."

Meaning thereby, an order was passed by this Court holding

that the appellant/writ petitioner will be entitled to continue in the

place in question till tenders are issued and finalised. He was also

granted liberty to participate in the tender process. The judgment

delivered by the learned Single Judge has attained finality and it is

binding upon the parties inter se.

The respondents, in the light of the aforesaid judgment,

issued a tender and thereafter requested the appellant/writ

petitioner to vacate the premises in question. One Mr. S. Rajender

was the successful tenderer and the appellant/writ petitioner was

unsuccessful in the process of tender. The appellant/writ

petitioner being aggrieved in the matter has preferred a writ