Common Order:

1. These writ petitions are filed by M/s Safai Karmachari Sangam, who is the license holder of Modern Toilet Block at Hanamkonda Bus Station. The grievance in both these writ petitions pertain to the action of the respondent-Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) in issuing a Circular whereby the contractual agreement between M/s Safai Karmachari Sangam and the TSRTC was sought to be terminated, allegedly without following the procedure contemplated under the Agreement, namely, evaluation and finalisation of the buyout amount in case of premature termination.

               1.1. In view of commonality of grievance, these writ petitions were analogously heard and are being disposed of by this Common Order. For the purpose of discussion, the averments in W.P. No. 13265 of 2023 are taken as reference.

2. The case of the petitioner-M/s. Safai Karmachari Sangam, according to the affidavit in W.P. No. 13265 of 2023, are that it is the license holder of Modern Toilet Block at Hanamkonda Bus Station under Agreement 04.05.2011. He filed the present writ petition challenging the Notice dated 26.04.2023 issued by respondent No.5-Depot Manager, Warangal-I. Through the impugned notice, the petitioner was directed to pay alleged license fee arrears of approximately Rs. 6,29,778/- and action was initiated for termination of the license. The petitioner contends that the notice is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) policies, violative of the principles of natural justice, and infringes Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

               2.1. It is stated that TSRTC, through proceedings dated 30.09.2022, decided to provide free toilet facilities at all bus stations and terminate existing toilet maintenance contracts, including BOT toilet agreements. However, the said proceedings expressly required TSRTC to first determine and pay a buyout amount to BOT licensees through a valuation process involving a committee comprising TSRTC officials and independent experts. It is alleged that TSRTC has not followed this mandatory procedure before taking steps to terminate the petitioner’s agreement.

               2.2. Aggrieved by the proceedings dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner and similarly situated licensees approached this Court in W.P. No. 40803 of 2022. By order dated 10.11.2022 in I.A. No. 2 of 2022, the High Court granted an interim stay of the proceedings and all consequential actions insofar as the petitioners were concerned. Despite the subsistence of the stay order, the respondents allegedly opened free toilets in the same premises without completing the contractual buyout process, resulting in reduction in the use of the petitioner’s paid toilet facility from November 2022 onwards and causing severe financial hardship.

               2.3. The petitioner further submits that, notwithstanding the stay order and the absence of any valuation or buyout determination, the respondents failed to constitute the assessment committee contemplated under the Agreement. Consequently, the petitioner was left with meagre revenue while continuing to face liability for substantial monthly license fees. To facilitate the valuation process, the petitioner submitted an independent valuation report to the concerned authorities on 05.04.2023 and also made representations to the respondents requesting to comply with the orders passed by this Court.

               2.4. It is further contended that TSRTC issued Circular dated 19.04.2023 granting concessions in respect of license fees arising from the COVID-19 lockdown. The circular provided for complete waiver of license fees for April and May 2020, permitted payment of dues for June to September 2020 in four equal instalments without penal interest, and directed collection of license fees from October 2020 onwards in accordance with the agreement. However, despite the issuance of this circular, the impugned notice dated 26.04.2023 allegedly included dues relating to the lockdown period and interest amounts contrary to the circular’s express terms.

               2.5. It is contended that the respondents’ actions are inconsistent with both the interim order passed by this Court, and also TSRTC’s own policy decisions, and that the demand for arrears and the recommendation for termination are unsustainable when the respondents have neither completed the valuation process nor paid the contractual buyout amount, while simultaneously operating free toilets adversely affecting petitioner’s revenue.

               2.6. Therefore, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned notice dated 26.04.2023, with a direction to the respondents to complete the valuation and buyout process contemplated under the proceedings dated 30.09.2022, correction of the license fee dues in accordance with Circular No. 15/2023 dated 19.04.2023, and waiver of license fees from November 2022 onwards in view of the operation of free toilets during the subsistence of the interim stay order.

3. The petitioner had also filed I.A. No. 1 of 2025 essentially contending that, despite the orders passed by this Court directing that the buyout amount under the BOT agreement be determined and paid before any interference with his contractual rights, the respondents commenced free toilet operations at Hanamkonda Bus Station without completing the buyout process, thereby resulting in a drastic reduction in the petitioner's revenue, accumulation of license fee arrears, and continuing financial losses. It is contended that though this Court subsequently directed the respondents to expedite the buyout process and not insist on payment of license dues until its completion, the respondents failed to comply, and therefore he filed a contempt case.

               3.1. It is also contended that TSRTC has now withdrawn its earlier policy of providing free toilets and decided to restore the pay-and-use system. However, the respondents have not addressed the financial losses suffered by the petitioner during the period when free toilets were operated. Therefore, the petitioner seeks waiver of the accumulated license fee dues for the period during which free toilets were functioning, or alternatively, restriction of such dues to 10% of the total amount without interest or penalty, payable in instalments. The petitioner also seeks extension of the contract period by three years to compensate for the losses suffered during the period of operation of free toilets.

               3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.( (2004) 3 SCC 553),Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P.( (1991) 1 SCC 212), Radhakrishna Agarwal v. State of Bihar(3 (1977) 3 SCC 457), Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology((2002) 5 SCC 111), Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks((1998) 8 SCC 1), Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan((2003) 6 SCC 545), Priya Gupta v. State of Chhattisgarh((2012) 7 SCC 433), Babu Ram Gupta v. Sudhir Bhasin((1980) 3 SCC 47), G. J. Fernandez v. State of Karnataka((1990) 2 SCC 488), State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nihala Shrusti((2005) 12 SCC 77), to essentially contend that writ jurisdiction could be exercised against arbitrary action of State/instrumentality of State even in contractual matters, and that this Court under the writ jurisdiction could grant equitable relief including compensation/waiver for arbitrary action of State/instrumentality of State.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, opposing the writ petition, essentially contending that the petitioner's grievance is not justified because the petitioner has been in continuous default of payment of license fees and has violated the terms of the BOT agreement. According to the respondents, the petitioner failed to pay license fees from April 2020 onwards (except for the period waived by the TSRTC), including substantial arrears from November 2022 onwards, despite repeated notices and opportunities to clear the dues. Under the agreement, non-payment attracts interest and can lead to termination after issuance of default notices.

               4.1. It is contended that the notice dated 26.04.2023 was merely a demand notice calling upon the petitioner to clear outstanding dues and warning of the consequences of default, and therefore the writ petition challenging such notice is not maintainable. They assert that the petitioner cannot avoid payment of contractual dues by relying on the proposed buyout process, especially when the defaults began even before the TSRTC policy decision dated 30.09.2022 regarding free toilets.

               4.2. It is contended that though the TSRTC had taken a policy decision to provide free toilet facilities and that any termination of BOT contracts must be carried out in accordance with Clauses 14.2 and 14.3 of the agreement, this does not absolve the petitioner of his independent obligation to pay license fees. The respondents deny that the petitioner is entitled to suspension or waiver of license fee dues. It is also contended that the petitioner has breached the contract, and therefore the issuance of demand and termination notices are justified. The respondents therefore seek vacation of the interim orders restraining them from insisting upon payment of dues.

5. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in response to the I.A. No. 1 of 2025, essentially contending that the petitioner's present application has become infructuous because the original issue concerning determination of the buyout amount no longer survives.

               5.1. It is contended that subsequent to the direction of this Court with regard to expediting the buyout process, a committee was constituted and discussions were held with the petitioner. However, the process could not be completed because the petitioner insisted on demands outside the contractual buyout framework, such as extension of the contract period and reimbursement of employee salaries.

               5.2. It is also contended that, by Circular No. 19/2025 dated 21.07.2025, the TSRTC abandoned its earlier policy of free toilets and restored the "Pay and Use" system, permitting existing BOT contractors, including the petitioner, to continue under their original agreements. Consequently, since the petitioner has been allowed to continue the contract, there is no longer any necessity to determine or pay a buyout amount.

               5.3. It is further contended that the reliefs now sought by the petitioner, namely waiver of accumulated license fee dues, reduction of liability to 10% of the dues, payment in long-term instalments, and extension of the contract period by three years, are entirely new claims that were never sought in the original writ petition, and that such substantive reliefs cannot be introduced through an interlocutory application.

               5.4. It is contended that the petitioner is contractually bound to pay all outstanding license fees and that the TSRTC has already granted all permissible concessions through its COVID-related circular, and that any further waiver would be contrary to the agreement and financially prejudicial to the TSRTC. The respondents emphasize that the petitioner's outstanding dues as of 08.08.2025, are Rs. 29,16,144/- towards license fee, GST, and interest, and they have to be paid in full by the petitioner.

6. Heard Mr. Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the writ petitions, and Mr. N. Chandra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC in W.P. No. 13265 of 2023, and Mr. P. Sathish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC in W.P. No. 13286 of 2024. Perused the record.

7. At the outset, Contractual Agreement dated 04.05.2011 between the petitioner and TSRTC is not in dispute. Further, the Notice dated 26.04.2023 issued by respondent No.5-Depot Manager, Warangal-I, directing the petitioner to pay alleged license fee arrears of approximately Rs. 6,29,778 and the action for termination of the license, is also not in dispute.

8. This Court, by way of an interim order dated 04.01.2024, in I.A. No. 2 of 2023, directed the respondents to expedite the process stipulated under Notification dated 30.09.2022 with regard to evaluation and finalisation of the buyout amount, and further directed not to insist the petitioner to pay the rental license fee dues.

9. Though the petitioner initially challenged the Notice dated 26.04.2023, alleging violation of terms and conditions under the Agreement dated 04.05.2011, particularly with regard to non-finalization of the buyout process in view of introduction of free public toilets, in place of “pay and use toilets”, it is relevant to note that it is an admitted fact that the TSRTC had rescinded from its proposal of replacing “pay and use toilets”, with free toilets, and reverted back to the earlier system of “pay and use toilets” and the petitioner has been permitted to continue under the Contractual Agreement dated 04.05.2011 under the same terms contained in the Agreement. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner with regard non-evaluation and non-finalisation of the buyout amount has become infructuous.

10. With regard to the grievance relating to waiver of accumulated license fee dues for the period during which free toilets were functioning, or alternatively, restriction of such dues to 10% of the total amount, for compensating the alleged losses due to operation of free toilets during relevant period, it is relevant to note that the matter had been considered by the Board of TSRTC vide Circular No. 15/2023-OPD (M&C) dated 19.04.2023, wherein the Board has made a policy decision, by approving certain measures, which are as follows:

               “1. To waive off the license fee for the months of April – 2020 and May – 2020 for all the stalls, Toilet Maintenance Contracts and advertisement contractors of the Corporation since there was total lock-down due to Covid pandemic.

               2. To allow the licensees who have not paid the license fee for the months of June – 2020 to September – 2020 to pay License fee in 4 equal monthly instalments i.e., April-2023, May-2023, June-2023 and July-2023 without imposing any penal interest.

               3. To collect license fee from October-2020 onwards as per the terms and conditions of the agreement.

               4. To refund the balance Security Deposit after withholding the license fee amount equivalent to the months of June-2020, July-2020, August-2020 and September-2020 and the other dues if any as on date, in case of those ex-licensees who have not paid the license fee for these four months.

               5. To adjust the 2 months license fee pertaining to April-2020 & May-2020 towards subsequent rental dues, in case of all those licensees who have paid the license fee for 2 months and to refund the 2 months license fee in case of ex-licensees.

               Al the Regional Managers are advised to take immediate necessary action on the above instructions for realizing license fee during the above period and report compliance.”

11. From a perusal of the above, it is evident that the Board of TSRTC has addressed the difficulties that arose during the Covid-19 lockdown period and accommodated the licensees to pay the license fee in four instalments, and further the Board had decided to collect the license fee from October-2020 onwards as per the terms of the contract agreement.

12. Further, this Court deems it expedient to refer to the dispute resolution mechanism stipulated under Article 24 of the contract agreement, which reads as follows:

               “Article – 24

               DISPUTE RESOLUTION

               24.1 All matters, questions, disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of and/or concerning and/or in connection and/or in consequences or relating to this Agreement whether or not obligations of either of both parties under this Agreement be subsisting at the time of such dispute and whether or not this Agreement has been terminated or purported to be terminated or complete, shall be referred to Civil Suit. The Award of the court shall be final and binding on the parties to this Agreement.”

13. Admittedly, as of today, the petitioner has been permitted to continue under the Contract Agreement dated 04.05.2011 under the erstwhile “Pay and Use” system, and therefore the constitution of a committee to evaluate and finalise the buyout process does not arise. Furthermore, the relief with regard to waiving of accumulated license fee, or restricting it to 10% of the total amount, too does not arise in light of the decision of the Board of TSRTC vide Circular dated 19.04.2023, wherein certain accommodations with regard to waiver of license fees for April and May 2020, apart from giving the facility of payment of license fee in instalments were devised. The petitioner having defaulted in payment of license fee as contemplated under the Circular dated 19.04.2023 cannot seek indulgence under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226.

14. Furthermore, it is settled law that writ jurisdiction can be invoked despite presence of alternative remedy, provided that there is violation of fundamental rights, or violation of principles of natural justice, or vires/legality of a Statutehas been challenged. In the instant case, neither there is violation of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, nor there is violation of principles of natural justice, nor the legality/vires of a Statute are under challenge. The grievance herein is purely a contractual dispute, squarely covered by the redressal mechanism provided under Article 24 of the Agreement dated 04.05.2011.

15. Further, it is settled law that the Courts should not ordinarily interfere with the eligibility criteria specified by the respective authorities under a tender notification, or the terms and conditions stipulated for a tender, etc., unless there are proven malafides on the part of the authorities in enforcing such eligibility criteria or the terms and conditions, uniformly across the board. Further, it is also settled law that Courts should not ordinarily interfere in the policy decisions taken by the competent authority in matter, by considering various issues relevant to such matter.

16. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that, in the instant case, the primary relief with regard to evaluation and finalisation of buyout amount having become infructuous, and further the subsequent relief sought in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 with regard to waiver of license fee or restricting the outstanding amount to 10% of total amount due, having been considered by the Board of TSRTC culminating in a policy decision vide Circular dated 19.04.2023, this Court does not see any merit in the writ petition.

17. For the foregoing reasons, both the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.

18. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. The interim ordersdated 04.01.2024 (in W.P. No. 13265 of 2023), and 27.06.2024 (in W.P. No. 13286 of 2024) stand vacated. At this juncture, this Court is inclined to observe that if the petitioner has any subsisting grievance or intends to represent / claim with regard toany aspect concerning the Circular dated 19.04.2023, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the dispute resolution mechanism provided under Article 24 of the Agreement dated 04.05.2011. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.