Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 467 (TS)

Thakur Thirumal v. State of Telangana

2025-04-29

K.LAKSHMAN

body2025
ORDER : K. LAKSHMAN, J. Heard Sri P. Giri Krishna, learned counsel for petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for School Education appearing for respondents. 2. Petitioners are claiming that they are the tenants of subject shops. In the year 2003, 3 rd respondent has allotted the subject shops to petitioners on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/-. The said lease was for a period of five (5) years. As per the said allotment letter, petitioners and 2 nd respondent have entered into rental deeds and petitioners have paid the security deposit. The period of lease was extended from time to time. 3. It is further contended by petitioners that in the year 2011, R&B officials took up Road Widening Programme, due to which, the subject shops were affected. Therefore, 2 nd and 3 rd respondents assured the petitioners that on completion of road widening, after renovation of the shops, they would put the petitioners in possession and continue them. Therefore, on the promise of 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, petitioners vacated the subject shops. The subject shops were renovated in the year 2021 and 2 nd and 3 rd respondents failed to keep up their promise. However, petitioners have submitted several representations to 2 nd and 3 rd respondents with a request to permit the petitioners to continue in the said shops. The same were not considered. While the matter stood thus, 2 nd respondent has issued a tender notification dated 17.04.2025 calling for applications for allotment of subject shops in the subject complex i.e., District Common Examination Board, Karimnagar Complex, Old High School Commercial Area, on lease. Last date for submission of applications is 30.04.2025 and auction is scheduled on 01.05.2025. Therefore, challenging the said tender notification dated 17.04.2025, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Learned Government Pleader for School Education, on instructions, would submit that the subject lease was only for a period of five (5) years. Even then, they have continued further in the subject shops. However, petitioners are not in possession of the subject shops since last 12 years. Hence, they are not entitled for continuation in the subject shops. There is no error in issuing the impugned tender notice. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 5. As discussed supra, in the year 2003, 3 rd respondent has allotted the subject shops to the petitioners on monthly rent. Hence, they are not entitled for continuation in the subject shops. There is no error in issuing the impugned tender notice. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. 5. As discussed supra, in the year 2003, 3 rd respondent has allotted the subject shops to the petitioners on monthly rent. The said lease was for a period of five (5) years. It was expired long back. 6. It is the specific contention of petitioners that on expiry of five (5) years lease period, they have continued further in the subject shops with the consent of 2 nd and 3 rd respondents. It is also their specific contention that 2 nd and 3 rd respondents have extended the lease period and they have paid the admitted rent and deposited the security deposit. It is also the contention of petitioners that they have vacated the subject shops in the year 2011 itself since R & B Department initiated road widening programme. 2 nd and 3 rd respondents assured them that on renovation of the subject shops, they will permit the petitioners to continue in the said shops. 7. It is also the specific contention of 2 nd and 3 rd respondents that petitioners have vacated the subject shops long back and since then, they are not paying the rents. 2 nd and 3 rd respondents never assured the petitioners that on renovation of the subject shops, they will permit the petitioners to continue in the subject shops. Though the petitioners contended that there was oral assurance from 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, they failed to prove the same. 2 nd and 3 rd respondents are specifically contradicting the said contention of petitioners that they have assured the petitioners that they will put them in the subject shops after renovation. It is also the specific contention of 2 nd and 3 rd respondents that petitioners are not in possession of the subject shops since last 12 years. Petitioners have filed rental receipts till the year 2011 and failed to file rental receipts thereafter i.e., prior to 2021.The scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in tender matters is very limited. The said principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and another , [ (2022) 6 SCC 401 ] . The said principle was laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited v. Montecarlo Limited and another , [ (2022) 6 SCC 401 ] . In the said judgment, Apex Court held as under: “Therefore, a Court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of powers of judicial review should pose to itself the following questions:- (i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the Court can say: “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.” and (ii) Whether the public interest is affected? If the answers to the above questions are in negative, then, there should be no interference under Article226.” 8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioners have failed to make out any case to interfere with the impugned tender notice dated 17.04.2025. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. Considering the fact that petitioners have paid security deposit and in view of the submission made by the learned Government Pleader for School Education that petitioners have to pay arrears of rent, liberty is granted to petitioners to submit a representation to 2 nd respondent narrating the aforesaid facts with a request to return the security deposit paid by them. Thereupon, 2 nd respondent shall consider the said representation and also arrears of rent, if any, to be paid to 2 nd and 3 rd respondents, and dispose of the same in accordance with law i.e., within four (4) weeks thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.