R. Narender vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, R. Narender, a license holder of Stall No. 26 at MGBS, Hyderabad, challenged an order dated 14.08.2024 by the Regional Manager, TSRTC. This order stipulated that to extend his license period, the petitioner must agree to pay the full license fee as per a previous agreement dated 22.08.2019, excluding GST and other charges. The petitioner sought to extend his license based on a previous High Court order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. No. 16823 of 2023, which he contended entitled him to a reduced license fee proportionate to the actual space occupied. The TSRTC had filed an appeal (W.A. No. 942/2024) against the 07.03.2024 order, which was pending adjudication without any stay.

Held

The Court held that the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the full license fee of Rs. 3,10,954/- per month (excluding GST, maintenance, and electricity charges) for the extension of the license period for Stall No. 26 was illegal and arbitrary. The Court reasoned that the order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. No. 16823 of 2023, which directed the reduction of license fee proportionate to the actual space, was still in force as no stay had been granted in the subsequent appeal (W.A. No. 942 of 2024). Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to the relief granted by the 07.03.2024 order. The Court declared the 2nd respondent's action of not extending the license as per the Corporation's circular dated 04.09.2021 and calling for fresh tenders to be unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to forthwith extend the license period of the petitioner by one year as per the 04.09.2021 circular and the order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. No. 16823 of 2023. The tender notification concerning Stall No. 26 was set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the 2nd respondent (Regional Manager, TSRTC) in demanding the full license fee as per the 2019 agreement for extension, despite the High Court's order dated 07.03.2024 in W.P. No. 16823 of 2023, is arbitrary and illegal, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent's order was arbitrary and contrary to the High Court's previous order dated 07.03.2024, which he believed entitled him to a reduced license fee. He argued that the respondents were bound by the existing court order, especially since the appeal filed by the Corporation against it was pending without a stay. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that since the order dated 07.03.2024 was challenged in W.A. No. 942 of 2024 and was pending, the petitioner had no right to claim a reduced license fee or an extension. They stated that if the petitioner agreed to pay the license fee as per the 2019 agreement (clause 6(a)), the Corporation was ready to extend the license period.