Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 569 (TS)

Bahuth Amit Kumar v. TSRTC

2020-07-21

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K.Lakshman, J. - This Writ Petition is filed to declare the impugned Reminder-II vide Case No.P3/122(1)/2019-MLG, dated 15.06.2020 and Original Notice No.P3/122(01)/2019-MLG, dated 16.03.2019 issued by the 4th Respondent insisting to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- towards license fee for the period from 10.01.2012 to 30.09.2012 with interest immediately, failing which, it will be constrained to bring the matter to higher authorities for termination of the license granted to the petitioner though the assigned Modern Toilet Block Development under Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) lines at APSRTC Bus station at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District, completed on 30.07.2012 which is 56 days more than 9 months (270 days) from handing over the new site on 07.09.2011 for construction, in place of the old site which on the advice and in agreement with the authorities, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the respondents. With the consent of the counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent authorities have entrusted construction of Modern Toilet Block at Miryalaguda Bus Stand in favour of the petitioner vide agreement dated 15.04.2011. The time fixed under the said agreement for completion of the construction of the Modern Toilet Block is 9 months (270 days) from the date of entering into the agreement. He would further submit that the respondent authorities have also instructed the petitioner to approach the Executive Engineer, Warangal, for handing over possession of the site in which the petitioner has to construct modern toilet. Accordingly, the petitioner has approached the concerned authorities with a request to hand over the possession of the site for the purpose of construction of the modern toilet. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the respondent authorities have not handed over the site as mentioned in the agreement dated 15.04.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that they are allotting the alternate site. Accordingly, the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 20.07.2011. According to the petitioner, the site was handed over only on 07.09.2011. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that they are allotting the alternate site. Accordingly, the petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 20.07.2011. According to the petitioner, the site was handed over only on 07.09.2011. On handing over the alternate site, the petitioner has completed the construction of modern toilet by 30.07.2012 and accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Warangal vide letter dated 30.07.2012 informed the Chief Civil Engineer, APSRTC, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad - 2nd respondent about the completion of the said modern toilet by the petitioner. 5. According to the petitioner, there is only a delay of 56 days in completing the construction of modern toilet block and the petitioner is ready to pay the amount towards monthly license fee for the said delay period of 56 days. The 4th respondent vide his letter dated 16.03.2019 advised the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- towards license fee for which, the petitioner has submitted a detailed representation dated 10.04.2019 to the 4th respondent. Despite receiving and acknowledging the said representation dated 10.04.2019, the respondent authorities are not acting upon it and on the other hand, there is a threat of taking coercive steps by the respondent authorities. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed. 6. On the other hand, Sri A. Ravi Babu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the interim prayer and the main prayer of the petitioner are one and the same and there is no administrative order passed by the respondent authorities. The impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2020 is only advisory in nature. The present writ petition is pre-mature and therefore, it cannot be entertained. Moreover, in the contractual matters, writ petition is not maintainable. With the said submissions, learned counsel for the respondents sought to dismiss the writ petition. 7. On perusal of the agreement dated 15.04.2011, the contract for construction of modern toilet block in Miryalaguda Bus Stand was awarded in favour of the petitioner. In the agreement dated 15.04.2011, it is specifically mentioned that the bidder is expected to complete the project within 9 months (270 days) from the date of entering into the agreement. It is apt to note here itself that the respondents have not specifically fixed time to complete the construction of modern toilet. In the agreement dated 15.04.2011, it is specifically mentioned that the bidder is expected to complete the project within 9 months (270 days) from the date of entering into the agreement. It is apt to note here itself that the respondents have not specifically fixed time to complete the construction of modern toilet. It is only stated that the bidder is expected to complete the project within 9 months (270 days) from the date of entering into the agreement. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has requested the respondent authorities to hand over the site and the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that they are looking for alternate site. Accordingly, the site was handed over to the petitioner only on 07.09.2011 and the petitioner has completed the construction of the modern toilet block by 30.07.2012. The letter dated 30.07.2012 addressed by the Executive Engineer, Warangal, to the 2nd respondent discloses the said fact. 8. The Executive Engineer, Warangal, vide proceedings dated 30.07.2012 informed the 2nd respondent that the petitioner has completed the construction of Modern Toilet Block, Bus Station, Miryalaguda, and the work is completed in all respects and may be put in use. Thus, as per the proceedings dated 30.07.2012 issued by the Executive Engineer, Warangal to the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has completed the construction of Modern Toilet block by 30.07.2012. Thus, there is 56 days of delay in completion of the said work. 9. It is also not in dispute that the 4th respondent vide proceedings dated 16.03.2019, advised the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,88,000/- towards license fee for the period from 10.01.2012 to 30.09.2012. On receipt of the said letter dated 16.03.2019 from the 4th respondent, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 10.04.2019 to the 4th respondent informing about the handing over of the possession of the site on 07.09.2011, completion of the construction of Modern Toilet block by 30.07.2012 and thus there is delay of 56 days. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to pay license fee for the said delay period of 56 days. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has received the said representation dated 10.04.2019. But, the same is not mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent. 10. The petitioner has also expressed his willingness to pay license fee for the said delay period of 56 days. Admittedly, the 4th respondent has received the said representation dated 10.04.2019. But, the same is not mentioned in the impugned proceedings dated 15.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent. 10. In view of the above stated facts, more particularly, considering the fact that the proceedings dated 15.06.2020 are only advisory in nature, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the 4th respondent explaining all the facts and also his readiness/willingness to pay the license fee for the said delay period of 56 days caused in completing the construction of Modern Toilet Block at Bus Stand, Miryalaguda, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of the said representation, the 4th respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter, after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Till the said exercise is completed, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the impugned proceedings vide Case No.P3/122(1)/ 2019(MLG), dated 15.06.2020 issued by the 4th respondent. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.