Telangana High Court
M/S. A. A Avocations Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Telangana on 3 June, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.7134 OF 2024
Between:
M/s A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd.
... Petitioner
And
The State of Telangana & others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 03.06.2024
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be : Yes
marked to Law Reporters/Journals?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to : Yes
see the fair copy of the Judgment?
________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
2
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WRIT PETITION No.7134 OF 2024
% 03.06.2024
Between:
# M/s A.A. Avocations Pvt. Ltd.
... Petitioner
And
$ The State of Telangana & others
... Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A.Venkatesh
Sr.Designate counsel
^ Counsel for the Respondents : Advocate General
? Cases Referred:
1. (2021) 6 SCC 771
2. (1998) 8 SCC 1
3.(2021) 16 SCC 35
4. AIR 1991 SC 537
3
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.7134 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned Senior Designate Counsel
Sri A. Venkatesh appearing on behalf of Petitioner and the
learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the
Respondents.
2. The petitioner approached the court seeking prayer
as under:
"to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction;
more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus:
(i) Declaring the actions of the 2nd Respondent in
sealing and thereby interfering with the possession of the
Petitioner with respect to premises Durgam Cheruvu Eco
Tourism Deck situated at Sy.403/P situated at Durgam
Cheruvu, Shaikpet Village and Mandal, Hyderabad leased
to the Petitioner under Registered Deed of Lease dated
12.02.2022 vide 2509/2022 as illegal, arbitrary, high-
handed and for being unconstitutional apart from being
violative of provisions of Telangana Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968, Telangana
Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and, Telangana Rent Revenue
Sales Act, 1839 and consequently set aside the same and;
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
(ii) Consequently direct the Respondents herein to
not to interfere with the possession, enjoyment and use of
the Subject Property leased to the Petitioner vide
Registered Deed of Lease dated 12.02.2022 vide
2509/2022 without following due process of law during the
pendency of arbitration proceedings before the Learned
Sole Arbitrator Retd. Hon'ble Justice Rajshekhar Reddy.
3. PERUSED THE RECORD :
a) Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd
Respondent and in particular, Paras 15 and 17, read as
under:
"15. In reply to para 36 to 43, it is denied that this
Respondent has illegally and vexatious sealed the premises
is far from truth and invented for the purpose of filing the
present writ petition. It is further submitted that the
Learned Sole Arbitrator was pleased to pass interim orders
on 2-10-2023 under section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Petitioner herein failed
miserably to comply with the directions of the Hon'ble
Arbitral Tribunal orders dated 02.10.2013 and 2.12.2023.
The Learned Arbitrator in the order dated 2-12-2023 made
it clear that interim protection stands vacated in case of
non-compliance, thus, there was no legal impediment to
take over the subject property, therefore this Respondent
has taken over the possession on 15.03.2024 by
conducting panchanama (Annexure No.3)
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
17. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in
WP No.10289 of 2023 has passed certain orders on 31-07-
2023 subsequent to passing of above orders and after
passing of these orders this Petitioner has filed Section 17
of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act and the Learned Sole
Arbitrator vide orders dated 02.10.2023 in IA No.1 of 2023
in Arbitration Case No.2 of 2022. Thus, there is no legal
impediment or orders restraining this Respondent from
taking over the subject premise. This Respondent has
taken over the possession of the subject premises by
conducting a panchanama (Annexure No.3) and erected its
banner and sealed the premises. It is submitted that the
Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass status quo order on
18.03.2024.
b) Reply affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner, and
in particular, Para No. 29 reads as under :
29. Even otherwise, as per terms of Deed of Lease dated
12.02.2022 if the Petitioner acts in breach of Deed of
Lease dated 12.02.2022 the 2nd Respondent shall be
obligated to follow the procedure prescribed under
Telangana Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised
Occupants) Act, 1968. That as per the provisions of the
said Act the 2nd Respondent ought to have issued a show-
cause notice to the Petitioner and afforded an opportunity
of hearing to the Petitioner prior to sealing the Petitioner
from the Subject Premises. It is submitted that the 2nd
Respondent is at all times bound to act in accordance with
the terms of Deed of Lease dated 12.02.2022 and does not
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
have right to illegally interfere with the possession of the
Subject Property and extra- judicially seal the Subject
Premises by use of force and without following procedure
contemplated under law more so being a state
instrumentality.
4. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the
averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by
the petitioner in support of the present writ petition, is as
under:
i) The petitioner is Company incorporated under the
provisions of Companies Act, 2013 and it is inter alia engaged in
the business of Food and Beverages, Restaurants, Bars,
Canteens and the Petitioner company has at all times conducted
its business operations incompliance with the requirements
prescribed under law. In response to a Newspaper publication
dated 20.06.2018 inviting Tenders for the grant of lease holding
rights to develop and operate Durgam Cheruvu eco tourism deck
situated at Sy.No.403/P situated at Durgam Cheruvu, Shaikpet
Village & Mandal, Hyderabad, the holding company of the
Petitioner i.e., M/s. Kamal Hotels Private Limited, had
participated in the bidding process and the said entity was
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
declared as the highest bidder and the tender was awarded in
favour of the Petitioner herein.
ii) It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner
and its holding company had entered into Deed of Lease dated
28.02.2019 with the 2nd Respondent whereby the Petitioner
company was granted lease holding rights with respect to the
subject property. Since holding company of the Petitioner had
participated in the bidding process solely for such reason the
holding company had been initially arrayed as a confirming party
to deed of lease dt. 28.02.2019 and the said lease deed at no
point in time was disputed by the Respondents herein.
iii. It is further the case of the Petitioner that, as per deed of
lease dated 28.02.2019 the 2nd Respondent is under an
obligation to entrust unfettered possession of the subject
premises by removing the pre-existing structures affixed on the
subject premises. Since the 2nd Respondent had failed to
handover unfettered possession of the subject premises and
discharge its obligations, the Petitioner did not pay the lease
rentals. Thereafter the 2nd Respondent had issued a final notice
before termination dated 25.01.2020 calling upon the Petitioner
to make payments, to a tune of Rs.2,08,50,600/- payable
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
towards rent for period June 2019 to December 2019 and April
2020 to September 2020.
iv) It is further the case of the Petitioner that the
Petitioner filed W.P No. 10289 of 2023 on the file of the
Hon'ble High Court at Hyderabad and the Court had stayed
recovery of INR 2,08,50,600/- by the 2nd Respondent
which is payable towards rent for period June, 2019
December 2019 and April, 2020-September 2020. It is the
specific plea of the Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent
cannot claim amounts towards sales commission as 2nd
Respondent has at all times interfered with possession of
the Petitioner and due to the same the Petitioner was
prevented from conducting any commercial operations
and the Petitioner could not make any sales for three
reasons :
i) 2nd Respondent had failed to come forward for
registration of Deed of Lease dated 28.02.2019 and the
same was only registered on 12.02.2022.
ii) 2nd Respondent failed to entrust unencumbered
possession of Subject Premises by removing pre-existing
structures affixed by the previous licensee.
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
iii) 2nd Respondent has always interfered with the
possession of the Petitioner and prevented Petitioner from
commencing commercial operations.
It is further the case of the petitioner that Petitioner paid
total amount INR 4,48,17,904/- and Petitioner paid INR
3,17,77,904/- towards lease rental and Petitioner paid
INR 80,40,000/- towards deposit and, inspite of
Petitioner's request to Respondent on 28.06.2021 to
Register Deed of Lease dated 28.02.2019 and to depute an
Officer for registration of Deed of Lease dated 28.02.2019
vide representation dated 14.08.2021 the Respondent did
not issue a response to the said communication. On
19.08.2021 the Petitioner requested Respondent to
cure its breaches under Deed of Lease dated 28.02.2019,
in terms of representation dated 14.08.2021, Respondent
did not issue a response to the said communication and
Petitioner was constrained to file Sec. 9 Petition on
26.08.2021 as Respondents were interfering with the
possession of the Petitioner, on 28.08.2021 Interim Order
had been passed in favour of the Petitioner in A.R.B.O.P
No. 72 of 2021 restraining 2nd Respondent from taking
any coercive steps against Petitioner and from illegally
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
dispossessing the Petitioner from the Scheduled Property
and on 27.12.2021, Final Order had been passed in
A.R.B.O.P No. 72 of 2021, restraining 2nd Respondent from
interfering with the possession of Subject Property and
directing parties to register Deed of Lease before
31.01.2022 and directing Petitioner to pay rent from
October, 2021 to December. 2021.
v) It is further the case of the Petitioner that on
16.06.2022 Petitioner was constrained to file C.O.P No. 42
of 2022 before Commercial Court seeking direction to
restrain 2nd Respondent from (i) taking coercive steps (ii)
dispossessing the Petitioner from Subject Property, and
on 16.06.2022 Commercial Court was pleased to pass ex-
parte ad interim Order in C.O.P No. 42 of 2022 restraining
2nd Respondent from dispossessing the Petitioner from
Subject Property. On 14.03.2023, however 2nd Respondent
issued Termination Order calling upon Petitioner to pay
dues of INR 4,39,46,543/- within 7 days failing which 2nd
Respondent would take possession of Subject Property
and such amounts have already been raised by 2nd
Respondent in Counter Claim before the Arbitrator.
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
vi) It is further the case of the Petitioner that on
21.03.2023 Petitioner filed W.P No. 8011 of 2023 before
High Court for Telangana challenging issuance of
Termination Order dated 14.03.2023 by the 2nd
Respondent and on 21.03.2023 the High Court was
pleased to suspend the Termination Order dated
14.03.2023 vide its Interim Order in W.P No. 8011 of
2023. On 17.03.2023 YAT & C Dept. revoked waiver of
lease rental granted to Petitioner previously based on a
letter dated 14.10.2021 issued by 2nd Respondent and on
27.03.2023 2nd Respondent issued letter calling upon
Petitioner to pay INR 2,80,50,600/- towards lease rental
purportedly payable for period June, 2019 December 2019
and April, 2020 to September 2020 in addition to INR
4.39,46,543/- as demanded vide Termination Order as
YAT & C Dept. revoked waiver granted previously.
Aggrieved by the same Petitioner filed W.P No. 10289 of
2023 seeking stay of Communication dated 17.03.2023
issued by YAT & C Dept. and consequential demand letter
dated 27.03.2023 issued by 2nd Respondent on
12.04.2023. Petitioner obtained interim orders in
Petitioner's favour on 13.04.2023 in W.P No. 10289 of
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
2023 inter alia directing 2nd Respondent not to interfere
with the possession and activities of the Petitioner if
Petitioner is taking action as per Deed of Lease and during
the course of hearing the Respondent had alleged that
Petitioner has not commenced commercial operations on
the Subject Property. On 08.07.2023 Petitioner issued
Contempt Notice calling upon 2nd Respondent to refrain
from with activities of Petitioner and comply with Interim
Order dated 13.04.2023 in W.P No. 10289 of 2023 as
Respondent was not permitting the architects hired by
Petitioner to enter Subject Property. The Respondents
however, did not issue a response to the said
communication.
vii) It is further the case of the Petitioner that on
02.04.2023 the 2nd Respondent filed a criminal complaint
on 02.04.2023 to SHO. Madhapur PS by alleging that
certain persons were attempting to trespass and demolish
security room of Durgam Cheruvu Eco Park behind B.R
Amedkar Open University Gate and on 04.08.2023 as
Respondent was interfering with the possession of the
Petitioner, the Petitioner filed Sec. 17 to restrain 2nd
Respondent from taking coercive steps and interfering
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
with the possession of 2nd Respondent and suspend
Termination Order dated 14.03.2023 and on 02.10.2023
Interim Order had been passed by Arbitral Tribunal
directing the Respondent not to interfere with the
possession of the Petitioner.
viii) It is further the case of the Petitioner that on
21.12.2023, 2nd Respondent filed IA No. 4 of 2024 before
Arbitral Tribunal to restrain Petitioner from raising
permanent structures and on 12.01.2024 Arbitral Tribunal
disposed off IA recording undertaking of Petitioner that
no permanent constructions would be raised above
ground level and 22.01.2024 2nd Respondent once again
filed IA No. 1 of 2024 to restrain Petitioner from raising
permanent structures in violation of Order dated
12.01.2024 in L.A No. 4 of 2023. On 18.01.2024 PS
Madhapur registered FIR No. 80/2024 against the
Petitioner at the behest of 2nd Respondent who gave a
complaint that the Petitioner is damaging the ecological
terrain in the Subject Premises and on 25.01.2024
Order is passed in CRLP No. 854/2024 staying all
proceedings in FIR No. 80/2024 and on 29.01.2024 GHMC
issued Notice under Section 452(1) & 461 (1) of GHMC
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
Act. 1955 calling upon the Petitioner to substantiate
authenticity of the structures failing which further action
would be initiated as per Section 636, 596. 461(4) & 461 -
A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act.
1956. On 31.01.2024 GHMC authorities have illegally
come on to the Subject Property and affixed a Notice
dated 30.01.2024 (received on 31.01.2024) and have
immediately withdrawn Notice dated 29.01.2024 issued
previously and on 31.01.2024 GHMC authorities
demolished the structures raised on the Subject Property.
ix) It is further the case of the Petitioner that on
01.02.2024 Petitioner was constrained to file W.P No.
2648 of 2024 to restrain GHMC from interfering with the
possession of Petitioner and on 02.02.2024 Interim Order
had been passed in W.P No. 2648 of 2024 directing parties
to maintain status quo with respect to the Subject
Property and further GHMC was directed to follow due
process of law before taking any action with respect to
Subject Property, but however on 15.03.2024, 2nd
Respondent came on to Subject Premises and illegally
sealed the premises and affixed a placard/banner
indicating that the Subject Premises belongs to the 2nd
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
Respondent and any trespassers will be prosecuted under
Sec. 447 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Aggrieved by the
same the present writ petition has been filed.
5. This Court vide its order dt. 18.03.2024 passed
interim orders observing as follows :
"Both the parties are directed to maintain status quo
existing as on today in all respects".
The said interim orders are in force as on date.
6. The Counter and Vacate stay petition has been filed by the
2nd Respondent and it is mainly contended that since the learned
Sole Arbitrator was pleased to pass interim orders on 02.10.2023
under Section 17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and
since the Petitioner failed to comply with the directions of the
Arbitral Tribunal orders dated 02.10.2023, 22.12.2023 and since
the learned Arbitrator clearly stipulated vide order dated
02.12.2023, that the interim protection stands vacated in case of
non-compliance as there was no legal impediment to take over
the subject property, therefore the 2nd Respondent took over the
possession on 15.03.2024 by conducting panchnama.
7. The learned Advocate General Sri A. Sudershan Reddy
placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
by the 2nd Respondent and also placing reliance on the judgment
dated 28.11.2019 of the Apex Court reported in (2020) 15 SCC
706 in Deep Industries Ltd., Vs. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation
Ltd., & Another contended that the present writ petition should
not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution since an
effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
8. A bare perusal of the deed of lease dated
12.02.2022 entered into between the 2nd Respondent and
the Petitioner herein in particular Clause 7(e) which deals
with Termination, states that whenever the deed of lease
is terminated by the lessor for breach of conditions of
deed of lease committed by the lessee, the lessor is at
liberty to initiate eviction proceedings and recovery of
amounts due from the lessee as per the provisions
including A.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1968, and A.P. Revenue Recovery Act,
1864 and A.P. Rent Revenue Sales Act, 1839.
9. A bare perusal of the material on record clearly
indicates that Petitioner obtained interim orders against
2nd Respondent dated 21.03.2023 in W.P.No.8011 of 2023
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
suspending the termination order dated 14.03.2023 and
the said order is in force as on date. The Petitioner
obtained interim orders dated 13.04.2023 in
W.P.No.10289 of 2023 inter alia directing 2nd Respondent
not to interfere with the possession and activities of the
Petitioner, if Petitioner is taking action as per Deed of
Lease, and the said order is in force as on date. The
Petitioner filed W.P.No.2648 of 2024 to restrain GHMC
from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner and
on 02.02.2024, the Petitioner obtained interim order in his
favour directing parties to maintain status quo with
respect to the subject property and further directed GHMC
to follow due process of law before taking any action with
respect to the subject property. The said orders are in
force as on date.
10. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of 2nd
Respondent at Paragraph 15, a specific stand is taken by
the 2nd Respondent that since the learned Arbitrator in the
order dated 02.12.2023 clearly stated that, the interim
protection stands vacated in case of non-compliance, as
there was no legal impediment to take over the subject
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
property, therefore, the 2nd Respondent had taken over
the possession on 15.03.2024 by conducting panchnama.
11. This Court opines that the Petitioner and the 2nd
Respondent are governed by the terms of the agreement
and the terms of agreement entered into between the
Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent dated 12.02.2022
should be placed on the pedestal of the highest priority
for interpretation. In the present case admittedly as borne
on record, it is mandatory for the 2nd Respondent to follow
the procedure as stipulated in Clause 7(e) of Deed of
Lease dated 12.02.2022 which clearly indicates that in the
event the Deed of Lease is terminated the 2nd Respondent
shall follow the provisions of Telangana Public Premises
(Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968 for
evicting the petitioner from the subject premises.
12. In so far as the plea of the learned Advocate General
is concerned with regards to the fact that the Petitioner
should pursue the alternate remedy available to him, the
same is answered by referring to the judgment of the
Apex Court dated 20.04.2021 reported in (2021) 6 SCC
771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs. State of
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
Himachal Pradesh, which referred to Whirlpool
Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in
(1998) 8 SCC 1 and the said view had been reiterated in a
recent full bench judgment reported in (2021) SCC Online
SC 801 in Magadh Sugars & Energy Ltd., Vs. State of Bihar
& Others. The principles governing the exercise of writ
jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an
alternate remedy had been summarized in the said
judgment at Para 28 and the same is extracted hereunder:
"28. The principles of law which emerge are that:
(i) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution
to issue writs can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other
purpose as well;
(ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a
writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of
the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is
available to the aggrieved person;
(iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where
(a) the writ petition has been filed for the
enforcement of a fundamental right protected by
Part III of the Constitution;
(b) there has been a violation of the principles of
natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly
without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is
challenged;
(iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High
Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in
an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition
should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate
remedy is provided by law;
(v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself
prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory
remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under
Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of
statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion;
(vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact,
the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ
petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the
view that the nature of the controversy requires the
exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not
readily be interfered with."
This Court opines that the present case falls under Clause
(i), Clause (iii)(a) (b) of para 28 of the Apex Court
judgment extracted above.
13. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in Unitech
Ltd., vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure
Corporation (TSIIC) and Others, reported in (2021) 16
SCC 35, dt. 17.02.2021 at paras 38, 39, 39.3, and 39.4
observed as under :
"38. Much of the ground which was sought to be canvassed
in the course of the pleadings is now subsumed in the
submissions which have been urged before this Court on
behalf of the State of Telangana and TSIIC. As we have
noted earlier, during the course of the hearing, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of
Telangana and TSIIC informed the Court that the
entitlement of Unitech to seek a refund is not questioned
nor is the availability of the land for carrying out the
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
project being placed in issue. The learned Senior Counsel
also did not agitate the ground that a remedy for the
recovery of moneys arising out a contractual matter cannot
be availed of under Article 226 of the Constitution.
However, to clear the ground, it is necessary to postulate
that recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not excluded altogether in a contractual
matter. A public law remedy is available for enforcing legal
rights subject to well-settled parameters.
39. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in ABL International
Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corpn. of India Ltd. [ABL
International] analysed a long line of precedent of this
Court to conclude that writs under Article 226 are
maintainable for asserting contractual rights against the
State, or its instrumentalities, as defined under Article 12
of the Indian Constitution.
39.3. Article 23.1 of the development agreement in the
present case mandates the parties to resolve their disputes
through an arbitration. However, the presence of an
arbitration clause within a contract between a State
instrumentality and a private party has not acted as an
absolute bar to availing remedies under Article 226
(Harbanslal Sahnia v Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC
107).
39.4. If the State instrumentality violates its
constitutional mandate under Article 14 to act fairly
and reasonably, relief under the plenary powers of
Article 226 of the Constitution would lie. This
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
principle was recognised in ABL International (ABL
International case, SCC p. 572, para 28)
"28. However, while entertaining an objection as to
the maintainability of a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the court should
bear in mind the fact that the power to issue
prerogative writs under Article 226 of the
Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by
any other provisions of the Constitution. The High
Court having regard to the facts of the case, has a
discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ
petition. The Court has imposed upon itself certain
restrictions in the exercise of this power. (See
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks19.) And
this plenary right of the High Court to issue a
prerogative writ will not normally be exercised by the
Court to the exclusion of other available remedies
unless such action of the state or its instrumentality
is arbitrary and unreasonable so as to violate the
constitutional mandate of Article 14 or for other valid
and legitimate reasons, for which the Court thinks it
necessary to exercise the said jurisdiction."
14. When three (3) writ petitions filed by the petitioner
are pending final adjudication on the file of this Court and
the Petitioner having interim orders in petitioner's favour
as on date and when the matters are subjudice this Court
opines that the very action of the 2nd Respondent in
seeking to seal the subject premises in itself is illegal,
since the 2nd Respondent is duty bound to follow the
procedure prescribed under the Telangana Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1968
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
while evicting the petitioner from the subject premises
since as per the provisions of the said Act, the 2nd
Respondent is bound to issue a show cause notice to the
Petitioner and afford an opportunity of hearing to the
Petitioner prior to sealing the petitioner from the subject
premises. The 2nd Respondent is bound to follow the terms
of Deed of Lease dt. 12.02.2022 and cannot initiate
coercive steps against the Petitioner contrary to rule of
law.
15. The Apex Court in the judgement reported in AIR
1991 SC 537 in Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of U.P.
observed as under :
"We therefore find it difficult and unrealistic to exclude
the State actions in contractual matters after the contract
has been made, from the purview of judicial review to test
its validity on the anvil of Article 14".
16. Taking into consideration :
a) The above said facts and circumstances of the case.
b) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of Respondent No.2,
c) The observations of the Apex Court in the judgments
reported in
(i) (2021) 6 SCC 771 in M/s. Radhakrishnan Industries Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh,
WP_7134_2024
SN,J
(ii) (1998) 8 SCC 1 in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar
of Trade Marks,
(iii) (2021) 16 SCC 35 in Unitech Ltd., vs. Telangana State
Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (TSIIC) and Others,
(iv) AIR 1991 SC 537 in Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State of
U.P (referred to and extracted above),
d) Taking into consideration Clause 7(e) of Deed of
Lease dated 12.02.2022 entered into between the
Petitioner and the 2nd Respondent, the writ petition is
allowed as prayed for.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ
Petition, shall stand closed.
___________________
SUREPALLI NANDA,J
Date: 03.06.2024
Note: L.R. copy to be marked
b/o
Yvkr/ktm
