M. Devadas v. The TSRTC AND 3 OTHERS
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: A.ABHISHEK REDDY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2020-12-21. M. Devadas v. The TSRTC AND 3 OTHERS. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 21609 OF 2020 Between: lt4. Devadas, S/o. Ratnaiah, Age 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 4-70, Thad iparthy village, Gopalpet |\llandel, Wanaparthy District (Fo rmerly I\/a ha boo bnaga r). .. PETITIONER AND 1 The TSRTC, rep. , by its lvlanaging Direclor and Vice Chairman Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Regional Manager, TSRTC. , Mahaboob Nagar Region, Mahaboob Nagar District. 3 The Personnel Officer, O/o. The Regional N,4anager, TSRTC Mahaboob Nagar Region, l\rlahaboob Nagar District. 4 The Depot Manager, TSRTC. , Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District. ,.
,RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings No. 011259(1)12019-RM/MB N R dated 1411012020 imposing penalty of Rs. 1,87,000/- by the 3rd respondent on the petitioner to permit the operation of the petitioner's hire bus bearing No. TS-32-T- 5798 on hire basis by entering into an agreement as per the allotment letter in No. 011259(2)2019-RM(MB) daled. 2611012019 as illegal, arbitrary, in violation of Principles of natural justice, fair play, and in violation of Art.
'14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300-4 of the Constitution of lndia lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents lo operate the petitioners passenger bus bearing no. TS-32-T5798 on hire basis as per the allotment letter No. 011259(2)2019- RM(lt/B) dated. 2611012019, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D. V. CHALAPATHI RAO Counsel for Respondents: SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, SC FOR TSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER THP HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 216O9 of 2O2O ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Mayur Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for TSI? TC, appearing for the respondents. with thejr consent, the Writ l)etition is disposed o1 at the stagc ol:rdlr-rission itself. 2.
This u,rit petition is lllcd sccking ar u rit of mandarnus cicclaring the proceedings uirle No. Ul/259(1)/2019-RM/MUNR, cl:Ltcd 14. lO. 2O2A, issucd br lcsponrlcrrt No. 3 - Lhc l)crsonncl Ollicer, TSRTC, M aharbu bn:Lqarr' llcgion, rmposing penaLln' ol' Its. 1,87,000/- on tl-]e pctitionor. Ibr operirting thc bus bcaling No. 'l'S-32'l-5798 on hire bi,rsis tLs pcr thc . 111otmen1 Ietter da[r:c] '26. 1O. 2019. 3. 'lhe case of the petitioncr is th:rt pursuant Lo thc l'endcr Notification dated 24. 10. 2O19 issued b1' thc respondent Corporation lor the supply <. ,f passcngr:r bust's to be operatcd on z, hire basis, the petil. ioncr has submitled his Lender application and was declared as success[ul biclder. 'l'he llxecutive l)irc'ctor, }'{yderabad Zone c:f the rcstr:ondcr) t Corporation uide lcttcr dartccl 26. 10. 2019 has allottcd thc routc 1o lhc petitroner and djrected hrr. n trr produr:e thc p:rsscngcr bL. rs rvilhin ! )0 dar. s fronr tltt: dLrLr: o1' tlrr saicl allotment Icttcr'.
Ar:cr>rrlingh. thc pctitionrrr has plirccrl irn orcicr lor the chassis ',r'ith Aslrok I. t r i:urcl irncl lrl'tcr leccir,'ing thc t lrirssis on 2. L01. 2020. lrc h:Ls lrrLnclcrl ovcr tllc slrrne to I{r clt:ritltrrrl (loirr:lr iJttildt:rs :incl li:rbricirtofs li)r Ilrl-rrictLtion ir1-exprcss l-ltts borlr irs 1;cr thc specific:r tior. r s ol'thc r-L:s1>r. rrcicnl Corporation. Brrt, r-1uc to hugc q,orklo:rd, thc siiitl lJldcrttbzrd Coach Ur:ilde rs and Ifabricators, which is one o1'tirt: aLlthorized coach builders of the AAR,. ] WP. No. 21609/20 20 respondent Corporation, has dclivcred the bus only on 05. 03. 2020. Immediately, the petitior-rer has aOpplied for registration of Lhe vehicle with the Transport Department, and in the meanwhile, the Government has declared lockdown due to COVID- 19. Therelore, after receiving the Registration Certificate and the Fitness Certificate, he has produced the passenger bus belore respondent No. 2 for inspection. But, hor,r,ever, respondent No.
2, instead of allowing the petitioner to operate the bus by entering into a hirc agrccmenL, has issucd thc impugned proceedir-rgs imposing penaltl' jlioncr of Rs. 1,87,000/- or-r thc pct on thc grollnd that thc bus n'as not produced rlithin 9O rlavs. I-{cnr:e . this ri rit petition. 4. Thc respondent Corporatiorr has filecl a counter affidavit stating that as there is no legal right of the $'rit petitroner and thc corresponding statuton obligation ol1 thc part of the Corporation, no Mandamus can be issucd. Pursuant to the tender notification, datcd 24. 10. 2019, the pctitioner had participated in the tenders and was the successful tenderer to operate the Express type bus on route Wanaparthy-Kurnool (462 KMs) from Wanaparthy Depot and the Corporation also issued an allotment letter, dated 26. 10. 2019, on an agreed rate ol Rs. 7. 97 per KM and advised l-him to produce thc bus within a period of 90 days from the date of allotmcnt, u,hich expired br, 23. 0 | . 2O2O.
I-{ou'ever, the pctitioncr prodr:ccd the br'rs be lorc tl. rc Tnspection Committee on 0,1. 07,2020. As slrch, the pcnaltv arnount ol Rs. 2,34,000/- r. r'as imposed, as per the guidclines vide Circular No. 26/20i9. Hou'ever, considerrng tl. rc Covicl- 19 situ:rtion, Lht: Corltoratiot. r rcduced an amount. of Rs. 47,0O0/ {for tl-re lockclou'n period rvaived off) Irom the actllal penaltl' and also advised thc petitior-rer to pay onl. v Rs. 1,87,000/-. Furlher, lhe contention ol thc petitioncr that due to Covid- 19 AAR,] J WP, No. 21609/20 20 situation he could not produce the bus is incorrect for the reason that the period of 90 days granted to the petitioner for producing the bus was expired by 23. 01 . 2020 whereas the lockdown was imposed w. e. 1. 22. O3. 2O2O and the petitioner has produced the bus bclbre the lnspection Committee on 04. O7 .
2020 and the refore the Corporatior-r has rightlv imposcd the pcnalt\' on the petitioner as thc terms and condilior-rs ol' thc tendcr and thc Circularr l)er No. 26l2019-OPD(PIg) and therclirrc the urit pctition is liablc to be clisnrissed. 5. The lcarrnecl cottnscl tbr tLrc pcLiliortcr has stiitccl th::rL rr'ithout r:rking into considcration the prcscnt Covicl- 19 situatiorr zrnd taking a pragmatic vieu. o1' the matter, thc Corporation has imposed penalty on the petitioner causing huge financial loss to the petitioner. The Corporation has also not taken into consideration the fact that the services of the Corporation are yct restored fully even as on date. In spite of making a representation before the Corporation, the request of the petitioner was not considered and the same was rejected vide order dated 17, I I . 2O2O statjng that there is no provision lor gir. ,ir-rg such facilitv and i,,ithout tal<ing into c<. rnsideration prescr'it Covid-L9 siLuartiorr.
I'lence, thc learned counsel seeks rndulgencc ol this Court and set arside the impugned noticc. Lcarnr:d counscl hi,rs taken ttris Court tlrroLtgh tltc lettcr issurccl lr) lfic Crrrpori-rtion. r'idc No. O 1 / 259(2)20 19-lRM(Mll), datccl 2(r. 1 0. 20 tc1. arrrrl h:is clrarln the attention of this Court to the one ol thc conditions stipulatcd in the said letter which reads as follou,s: " Failing to produce the bus tuithin the specifLed time, the alLotment tuill be treated as cancelled and the caution deposit amount paid by you stand " forkited. WP, No,2 1609/2020 arld argucd that thc Corporatio:. r had a right ro canccl thc allotmcnt I>ut therc \\'as no sttpltlalion ol imposing artv penaltr'. That the dela1' causcd u as duc to the circumstanccs t'hich r. r,crc be;-ond the control of t he petitioner.
That, immediatelv aftcr receipt of the aforementioned letter, the petitioner had placed an order for the bus, but there was a delay by the Dealer as the production had slowed down at the factory and after the delivery of thc vehicle, the samc was given to Flyderabad Coach Builder and Fabrication for bodybuilding who delivered the vehicle on 05. 03. 2020, but due to thc lockclou,n imposed throughollt thc countn', thc reerstratio:r ol tl-rc vchiclc could nol bc donc till 03. 07. 2020 ar. r<l thr' ,,erlric'le uirs ltclirrc 1:r-orlrrr:ecl thc Crlrporatiorr. br-rt Lhc i:'r'rpr-rgnccl lcttcr is issr-rccl imposir-rg a pcnaltv ol' Rs. 2. 34,0007'- out ol r,hich an amount ol Rs. 47,000/- rr:ductior. r is givcn. Th:rt. inspitc ol gir,ing an cxplanatior. r, the authoriLic-'s har,<' not cor-rsiclcred lhc samc and rcjcctcd the rcprescntation u,ithoLrt assigr-ring any reason.
Learned Counsel could argued thal the authorities have not taken into consideration the currcnt pandemic situation, the lockdr:r. r'n of the entire nation, and also lthe fact thal lill Septembe r , 2O2O , the Corporation is unable to run its fleet. Therefore, even if the petitioner had produced the vehicle within the stipulated time, the Corporation could not had been in a position to rull lhc vehiclcs, more than50ol) of thc fle<:t is not being rLln even as on datc. That, this is only a partiai running of the vchiclcs and therclore t1-re pcr-raltl rmposed is not onlr, arbitran cxercisc ol' pou cr not r-cslccl u ith Lhc authorit\ but opposed lo all pt inr rples r'I r] ; l I l l r; r I j r t r r i , c. AAR, ] WP. N0. 21609/ 2020 6.
Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel has opposed the verv maintainabilitl' ol the Writ Petition itsclf and has contended that suffrcient time hais been grantcd to the petitioner lor prociuction ot the bus, but the pctitioncr' larilecl ro produce thc 'lhc s. lrnc or. l tin'rc. timc grantecL to the pctitioncr hurs cxpirccl b1 23. 01 . 2020 i. c. tu'o monttrs prior to thc lot:ktlon n itnposcd bv thc (iovernrnent u'. e . 1. 22. 03. 2020, theretble. tltt' pctitioncr (annot t. {kc advzrntage of the Covid- 19 sitr-tirtion ancl sce k indr-rlgence o1 t1-ris Conrt. Even olheru'ise, the Corporaticin has recirtcecl an amoLLttt of Rs. 47,000/- from the per-ralt1. amounL lbr tl-rc lockdovu'n period and therelore the said ground is not available to the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel would argue that once the petitioner had agreed to the terms of the contract, he is bound to adhere to the stipulated time period.
That, this Court while dealing with the matter of contractual nature should not intervene under Article 226 ol the ConstitLrtion of lndier, more so, u'hcrc disputed questions of lact are involr,ed and relegate the pzrrtl to a Civil Court or the compctcnt . iuthorjt\', ancl has reliecl on Joshi Technologies International INC vs. Union of Indial to sLrpl)ort his cOntention. Lrarrrccl Stirnclrrrrl CcrL-urstl lrars 1rLItlir'r- cortc nrlLrcl that the Corporatior-r dr-r1r' taking into consiclcr. Ltion tllc pres('nt pi,rnclcmic situation has reducecl lhe clLlarntLlm o1' pcnzrltl b-r' Rs. a7,O00/-. Llence, the learnccl Stanclirrg Cor-rnscl pra) s this Court to dismiss the u rir petition. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the iearned Standing Counsel appearing lor the respondents and perused the record. (7) '2015 scc 728 I 6 '. WP. No. 21609/2020 'lhc E. rcc'orcl rcvc:rls rh:rt tht' pclitior. r('r h:rci p:rrticipartcd in tirc lcr. rclcr for slrplrlr ol llus.
,rn(l \\irs allottc(l lllc roLllc Wanapurrlhr'- Iiunrool (Exp. ) on 26. i 0. 2019. ars per thc terms ol the Tr:ndcr Notilication . ur cl . 1lso lh(: lcltcr ol aliotment, the petitioner had to produce thr: bus beltrrc Ll-re authorities u ithin a pcriod ol 90 davs i. e. , he had timc till 23. O 1 . 2O2O to produce lhe vehiclc for inspection and for induction into the fleet. The petitioner has produced the vehicle for ir-rspection and induction on 04 . O7 . 2O2O. By letter, dated 14. 10. 2O2O, the Corporation has informed the petitioner that he has to pay an amount of Rs. 1,87,000 /- for producing the bus beyond the stipulated 90 days so as to permit the operation ol thc vehicle. The petitioner gave a rep. resentation on 04. 1 1. 2020 seeking exemplion of thc penalty for late productior-r of the vehicle as the delav u,as due to the circumstances u'hich rvcrc be'', or. rd the control oI lhc pelitione r. Br' ]cttcr. clatcd 17. 1\. 2O2O, t I.
'lc Corl)oration lr:rs rcjcctccl thc rcclucst ol tl-rc pctitioner. The said 1clter reads as lollou's: "Thc rcprescntation slrbmitled b-v vou vidc rel. 51h citccl has bccr. r cxamincd b) thc compctent authorrtl- in terms of the tender conditions. There is no provisiorl to give such facility as requested by you. " The said letter reveals that absolutely no reason assigned for rejecting the request. 9. This Court as well as the Apex Court, on number of occasions, have hcld that an]' authoritv/ court/ quasi judicial authority have to ncccssarill,give reasoni:. rg in the ordcr passed b1, thcm. Unless rcasonirrg is gir. en in the ordcr, neilhcr the part\'i-ror Coltrts,/bclorc q'hom llrc ordcr is c]'rallcngcd,,r'il1 bc rrr a Lo l)o:. ili,)n AAR, ] W P. N0. 21609/20 20 . rppreciate as to what has weighed u,ith the sarrd authority either ior dismissing or allowing thc application ol thc petitioncr, 1'hough the quasi jr:dicial or adrninistrntr\rc .
1ut11orit]' irrc uot obligatcd tr> give a lcngthv or elabor:rte rcasoninq ers in thc ciLsc ol . -Ir-tdiciLLl or'(le r, \,et thel trre cxpectrd to givc :r rcasonccl orclcr u hich sl. ror-tlcl bc prccise. concisclt' settinq oLrt tlre lcerson lirr nllos'ing or drsmissing the contention/ application / casc. 10. Though the learned Standing Counsel for the Corporatior-r has argued at length about the contractual obligations of the petitioner to produce the vehicle within the stipulated time, a perLlsal of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Tender Schedule does not reveals that there is a condition which gives the Corporation a right to impose penaltv lor late production of the vehiclc. These tenders \\'r:re notified vidc 'lcnder Notiilcation No. l)9/359(33)/ 15-OPD(P), clarecl 2. 1. 10. 2019. ancl thc petitioncr l;cing onc of thc srrccc-sslr-ri l>jdclcr \\'as scr'rt allotment Icttcr Vidc Lr. No. O I1259(2)/2019-RM N'l11. clatccl 26 10 2019. Neitht.
'r the tcnder notillcation nor thc lcttcr of alloLrnent stipLllatcs irn\ rmposition of penaltf ibl producing rhe vchiclc aiier thc' stipulated period. Thc learned Starnding Counscl has soughI to sLlpport the impugned letter on the basis of Lhe circular No. 26/2019-i)PD-PL(1, dated 17. 12. 2019, to buttress his contention that the Corporation was u,ell within its rights to impose the pcnalty for producing the vehicle after the stipulated date. 1 1. Admittedly, the Circular, dated l7 . 12. 20 19, is issued much after the issuance of the tender notification. Neither the petitioner was made aware about the issuance ol the said circular at an) point before the expiry o1'thc strpulatcd pcriod ol90 days, nor altcr the saicl pcriod. It is onlr lirr thc [irst tinrc, a rrrc'nIir. rn is maLde in AAR,] B t WP. No. 21609/2020 the impugned lettcr, dated 11. 1O. 2O2O, and a copy of the said Circular is filcd along,,r'ith the counter.
The Circular reveals that the Mar-raging Dircctor of the Corporation had issued the same and thc copies r,r'cre nrarkr:d to (1) Ali [,xecutivc I)irectors &, F. A. ior inlormatior. r, (2) All l)VMs, A11 Dr'. CAOs lor inlormation & n/actiorls (3) All Depot Mar-ragcrs/Accounts Officcrs lor information & n/actions. It is ncithcr cxplairred in the counter llor bv rhc Standing Counsel as to ho\\, the petitioner is expectcd to kno',r' about the imposition of the penalty for producing the vehicle after the stipulated period when the said condition is not part of the tender notification, the letter of allotment and not communicated to the petitioner before the stipulated time period. The reading of the Circular reveals the quantum of penalties as under: Particulars trxisting Penalties 1l -a Iis. 1. 000, Ir(r huspcrd;r! 2) \2. Thcrc is no i:rdic:rtior-r as to u'hv t\\'o ratcs \\'ere fixcd (1) Rs.
1,00O/ - lor thc clclav in production of thc l;ns from 9 1'' d:1 tr> 18Odr dav after thc pcrmissiblc 90 davs limc, and (2) Rs. 2,000/ ior thc delay in prodr-rction ol the bus from 181't day to till submission of bus. If the only reason for imposing the penalty is to see that the bidder supplies the buses within the stipulated time, and that the Corporation does not suffer any loss due to the non-running ol the buses in the allotted route, there is no logic or reason for fixing tu'o rates. Be that as it may, the fact remains that this Circular is not part ol thc contract nor the allotme nt lctter. Il is not cvcn the WP. No. 2 1609/ 2 0 20 case of thc Corporation th:1t thc pe titioncr \\'. ts pLrt on r'rotice about the isslrance oi'thc Circular or' lirrcs. rirnccl abor-rt the irt'rposrtion of jssu:rncc pcnaltv irnmedi:ite1r'aI'tcl thc o1'tltt- Circr-tlur or i:clort: thc expiry of 90 davs term periocl.
l1 tlrc pctitior-rer \i iis plrt ()n notice and intimated about the Circular beforc the expirl' ol 90 clays ar-rd still the petitioner had not taken an-v. ' steps to produce the bus within the stipulated time, then the Corporation would had been perfectly justified in imposing the penalty. Once the tender conditions are notified and the parties have come forward accepting the terms of the tender condition and given their ofler for sr-rpply ol thc buses at a particular rate and lbr a particular roure, the said offer was accepted b1' the Corporation bv issuance of the Allotment Letter, dated 26. 1O. 2019. the parties are bound bv the said terms at. rd cor-rtlitions, thc\' ( irr'lnot nlter. nroclil\'. r'rrrr'. rc'scjncl thc tc'rms of lhe contrnct unilatcrzLll-,, . Once it concluclccl contract u:rs zrrrivcd :rt, tlle perrtics r. r'crc bound tltcrcb. , . Il' thcv u clc 1o irllr:r' or mr>dil'r'the tcrms tllcreo1.
it rilrs rtclr-Lirtcl lo ltc clono eiihcr il exprcss agrecmcr)t or bt, tr('ct-.. sirn irnplication i'r,hic:h ri,oulcl negate the application of the doctrine of "acceptance sub silcntio". But, there is nothing on record to show that such a course of action was taken. The petrtioner at,r-ro point of time was made krrown about the internal circulars. The parties that would suffer civil consequences by issuance of the Circular must be given due notice. Principles of natural justice are required to be complied u,ith. 'l'he impugncd noticc issucd tx' the respondents is bascd on ru Circular u'hich has not bccn com m Lrn ic:rt<:rl to the petitioner and he u,as not put on lroticc t. it nnr,poinL ol-lirric bcltrrc: issr-rancc ol thc-inipugncd notice, 'll. rc Circr-rl:Lr is ncithcr prlrt and parcel ol the terms ol tcncier doclrmcnl r)or tllc l. ttcr ol':illotrncnt and therclbrc WP. No. 21609/2020 the same cannot be relied on by the Corporation to impose the penalty.
Therefore, this Court is of the considercd opinion that the imposition ol the per-raltv ol Rs. 1,87,000/- and ir-rsisting the petitioner to pal the said penaltv as a cor-rdition preccdent for ir-rduction into thr' flcct is an arbitran cxcrcisc ol pou'cr, illeg:ri, bad. opposccl to principlcs ol natnral samc has to . justicc:rnd the bc neccssarih sct asiclc. 13. In vicu, ol thc arborc. thc urit pctitlorl is alloucd bl setring aside tl. rc procecdings r,'ir. le No. O l 1 259(1) 1 2419-Rlvl/MBNIi, dated 11. lO. 2O2O, issucd bl respondcnt No. 3 - the Personncl Officer, 'lSRl'C, Mahabubr-ragar Region, imposing penalty of Rs. 1,87,000/- on the petitior-rer for operating the bus bearing No. TS-32-T-5798 on hire basis as per the allotment letter dated 26. 10. 2019 and consequently the respondents are directed to permit the operation of the petitioner's hire bus bearing No. TS-32-T-5798 on hire basis by entcring into an agreement as per the allotment letter in No. O\ 19-RM(MB), dated 26. 1O.
2019, r,",ithout insisting 1259(2)20 fot' pa1,6gn1 ol tl al tr'. Pe Thc mis<:cllrincor. ls pcnding, if shall llctitions an1,, stand closcd. SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT REqISTRAR ,TRUE COPY// -,1. ,_1,-_-/ _T SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The l\,4anaging Director and Vice Chairman, TSRTC, Bus Bhavan, l\,4usheerabad, Hyderabad 2 The Regional l\4anager, TSRTC. , N/ahaboob Nagar Region, Mahaboob Nagar District. 3. The Personnel Officer, O/o. The Regional [\4anager, TSRTC [t/ahaboob Nagar Region, Mahaboob Nagar District. 4. The Depot l\/anager, TSRTC. , Wanaparthy, Wanaparthy District. q One CC to Sri D V Chalapathi Rao, Advocate [OPUC] b. One CC to Sri B. Mayur Reddy, SC for TSRTC (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies tVBC Alry-t_/\ HIGH COURT DATED: 2111212020 1 HE s IA c o 2 I I)EC M * -. (: PA1 ORDER WP. No. 21609 of 2020 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION, WITHOUT COSTS \\\) , QcrlDreA L-. '\1 lr"q\r-P*
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.