ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Praveen Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC), for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the proceedings No.P4/122(22)/2020-R.R., dated 02.09.2021, issued by respondent No.3 (for short, ‘the impugned order), canceling allotment order of the petitioner with regard to Stall No.6, situate at Dilsukhnagar Bus Station, Hyderabad. 3. Petitioner contends that he was allotted Stall No.6 (Tea & Snacks) (Open 6x6) at Dilsukhnagar Bus Station vide allotment order dated 05.12.2020, in pursuance of Tender notification dated 16.10.2020, for the purpose of conducting business in selling tea and snacks on payment of monthly licence fee of Rs.17,200/-(Rupees Seventeen Thousand Two Hundred only). 4. Petitioner contends that on verification of the said premises, it was found that the said stall is located adjacent to gents’ toilets and due to the foul smell emanating from the toilets, customers frequenting the stall of the petitioner feel inconvenient which prevented them from visiting the stall, thereby causing loss to the petitioner. 5. Petitioner further contends that he had requested the respondent-authorities for change of location of stall to some other place, and in that connection, he had also approached this Hon’ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.14190 of 2021 which was disposed of on 28-06-2021, directing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents, and upon receipt of such representation, the respondents to consider the same within a period of one (01) week. 6. Petitioner further contends that thereafter he submitted a fresh representation dated 28.06.2021 to the respondents, but the same was rejected on 27.07.2021 by the respondents stating that request of the petitioner to change the location of the stall to some other area is not possible. 7. Petitioner again approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.19259 of 2021 challenging the above rejection letter dated 27.07.2021 of the respondents, which is still pending. 8. Petitioner further contends that the official respondents without verification of the factual position, issued the impugned order in a mechanical manner; that there are plenty of open places within the premises of the Bus Station, but the authorities are not considering the request of the petitioner. 9. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 10. 8. Petitioner further contends that the official respondents without verification of the factual position, issued the impugned order in a mechanical manner; that there are plenty of open places within the premises of the Bus Station, but the authorities are not considering the request of the petitioner. 9. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the representation dated 28.06.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the respondent-authorities, respondents have issued the impugned order whereby the allotment made to the petitioner was cancelled and forfeited the security deposit into the Corporation; and though the official respondents issued a fresh tender notification later, nobody participated because of the location of the said stall. 11. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel, appearing on behalf of 3rd respondent-Corporation, vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition by contending that the stall which has been allotted to the petitioner has been in existence since more than a decade; that prior to the allotment of the stall to the petitioner, the said stall was in the very same place and there was no inconvenience caused to any of the passengers / commuters; and that the earlier owner used to conduct business in the very same place. He also contended that petitioner was given an opportunity for verifying the factual location of the premises, but the petitioner did not do so; and having participated in the tender notification, petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions of the tender notification. He has also drawn the attention of the Court to the order dated 27.07.2021 passed by the authority concerned on the representation submitted by the petitioner, which reads as under: “The petitioner was offered personal hearing on 12-07-2021. During the personal hearing also the petitioner requested to allot alternative site in place of the stall allotted near platform No.6 through tenders. The petitioner was informed that the alternative site cannot be provided and the petitioner was advised to change the facing of the stall to his convenience at the same location. But, he has not agreed to it. The location of the stall No.6 was existing at the same place near platform No.6 i.e., Karimnagar & Kaleshwaram platforms prior to the tender notification also. Earlier licensee carried out his business near platform No.6 only. But, he has not agreed to it. The location of the stall No.6 was existing at the same place near platform No.6 i.e., Karimnagar & Kaleshwaram platforms prior to the tender notification also. Earlier licensee carried out his business near platform No.6 only. The petitioner was well aware of the location of the stall No.6 even before participating in the tenders.” 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 further contended that the respondent-authorities, left with no other alternative, cancelled the allotment order given to the petitioner stating that as per Item No.3 of the tender Terms and Conditions, “the petitioner is obligated to execute deed of license with the Corporation on a non-judicial stamp paper worth of Rs.4,128/-within seven days from the date of payment of Security Deposit, failing which the allotment is liable for cancellation and the Security Deposit will be forfeited without any further notice/intimation”. 13. As per Item No.65 of the tender Terms and Conditions, the security deposit is liable for forfeiture which reads as under: “(c) The successful tenderer does not enter the Deed of Licensee within stipulated time as mentioned in the allotment order. (d) If the successful tenderer fails to commence the business after depositing security deposit and execution of deed of license within the stipulated time as per the allotment order, the licensee is liable for forfeiture of security deposit.” 14. Learned counsel for respondent No.3, therefore, contends that there is no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the authority concerned and the same is in consonance with the terms and conditions of the tender notification. 15. Submissions of learned counsel have received due consideration of the Court. 16. On 21.09.2021, interim direction was granted in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2021. 17. Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2021 was filed to vacate the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2021. 18. Admittedly, in the present case, the petitioner has been agitating for re-location of Stall No.6 from the present location to some other location on the ground that the same is beside the gents’ toilet, and foul smell emanating from the gents’ toilet is causing lot of inconvenience to the passengers / commuters; and therefore, the passengers / commuters are not willing to come and have tea and snacks at the stall. 19. Insofar, the tender matters are concerned, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in the tender notification. The interference by the courts in such cases is very minimal until and unless it is shown that the authorities concerned have passed orders which are found to be unreasonable, harsh or illegal. 20. Moreover, it is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the respondent-Corporation has many open places they are not shifting the location of the subject stall No.6 on some vague and flimsy ground. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that even after the Corporation has issued a fresh tender notification calling for participation, nobody has participated in the tender notification. He further stated that petitioner is no longer interested in doing business in the said premises, more particularly, at Stall No.6, as the official respondents are not coming forward to shift the location of stall No.6, petitioner prays that the impugned order may be set aside to the extent of forfeiting the security deposit lying with the official respondent-Corporation. 22. Having regard to the above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the fact that petitioner has been agitating for long with regard to relocation of the stall right from inception, the authorities concerned cannot forfeit the entire security deposit on the ground that petitioner has not executed a deed of license. 23. In view of the same, the writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent of forfeiting security deposit of the petitioner. 24. The order with regard to cancellation of the allotment shall stand. The official respondents are directed to refund the security deposit of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 25. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part as above. 26. Consequently, Interlocutory Application No.2 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2021 which was filed to vacate the order dated 21.09.2021 passed in Interlocutory Application No.1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.22982 of 2021, is closed. 27. No costs. 28. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.