THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
Writ Petition No.25303 of 2014
Between: Smt.A.Rajani And
Dated 08th October, 2014
…Petitioner The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep.by its Managing Director, Busbhavan, RTC ‘X’ Road, Hyderabad and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Pulla Rao Yellanki Counsel for the respondents: Sri K.Satyanarayana Murthy The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief:
“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in not constructing the Culvert on the drainage in the Tiruvuru Bus station which causing hindrance and obstacle to run the Petitioner’s Super Bazaar & Show Room business at Tiruvuru Bus station though the licence is given and having bounden duty to construct the culver on the drainage by the respondents corporation for running the business in stall No.A6 to A15 = Total 10 stalls at Tiruvuru Bus station for a period of ten eyars from 21.10.2008 to 20.10.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and consequently, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to make fresh agreement from the date of construction of culvert on the drainage for a period of next ten years and further direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 to pay the loss of interest on the investment of Rs.50 lakhs invested by the petitioner to pay other damages, otherwise if the respondents corporation does not agree for fresh agreement, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents corporation to pay entire invested amount of Rs.50 lakhs along with accrued interest thereon and advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- apart from other damages.”
Sri K.Satyanarayana Murhty, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, placed before the Court proceedings bearing No.P7/437(93)/2008-RM/K, dated 19.03.2012, of respondent No.2, whereunder it has cancelled the revocation of termination order, dated 20.09.2011. Indeed, with reference to the said proceeding, the petitioner has herself made a representation on 23.06.2012, a copy of which was filed by the petitioner in the writ petition.
Unless the petitioner successfully challenges the said termination order and also the cancellation of revocation of termination order in a properly constituted proceeding, she is not entitled to grant of relief claimed in the present writ petition.
In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies, if she feels aggrieved by the termination of the lease.
As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.37594 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 08th October, 2014
VGB