M/S.Koushik Group vs The State Of Telangana And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 4364 Tel

         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

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

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:

"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

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

(2015) 7 SCC 728

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.

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