HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1036 OF 2014
DATED: 30.07.2014 Between:
M/s.P.K.Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd … Appellant And The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1036 of 2014
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao)
This writ appeal is filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.17194 of 2014 and batch.
The appellant in the Writ Appeal was awarded the right to collect user fee for Nehru Outer Ring Road stretch from Pedda Amberpet (km 96+650) to Shamirpet (km 61 +100) via Shamshabad, Narsingi, Patancheru, Dundigal and Medchal for a length of 119.450 km (with a diversion of about 3 km at Kandlakoya (near Medchal on NH:44) Interchange) of Nehru ORR, Hyderabad up to 25.03.2014 pursuant to a Bid Notice dated 27.01.2012.
The third respondent in the Writ Appeal issued a Notice inviting Tenders on 25.03.2014 for fresh award of right to collect user fee for the said stretch of Outer Ring Road. It was awarded to M/s.Eagle Infra India Limited, the fourth respondent herein but the said award is questioned in four writ petitions including Writ Petition No.17194 of 2014 filed by the appellant herein.
It is not disputed that the learned Single Judge having heard arguments in Writ Petition Nos.15863, 15862, 15864 & 17194 of 2014, reserved the matter for judgment on 16.07.2014 and after conclusion of arguments on that day, passed the order impugned herein. The learned Judge in the impugned order has made an interim arrangement pending pronouncement of his final decision in those writ petitions permitting the fourth respondent herein to deposit a sum of Rs.53 lakhs p.m. in addition to Rs.3.92 crores p.m. which the fourth respondent had offered, and on such deposit permitted the third respondent to enter into an agreement with 4th respondent.
Assailing this interim arrangement made pending disposal of the Writ Petitions, this Writ Appeal is filed.
Heard Sri D.V.Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, Sri M.Surender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent and Sri C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though his client’s contract had ended on 25.03.2014, an extension was granted to it for a further period of three months or till the new agency commences its toll operations; that the purpose of an interim order in a Writ Petition would only be to maintain the status quo till the Writ Petition is finally decided; and that the interim arrangement proposed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order seems to change the status quo by permitting the fourth respondent to run the user charge collection operations by displacing the appellant. He further contended that although his client had not participated in the tender process and the fourth respondent had become the successful tenderer, still, his client has locus to challenge the proposed interim arrangement since it affects its rights.
The learned counsel for the fourth respondent however refuted these submissions and contended that the appellant, not having participated in the tendering process, has no locus to either challenge the award of contract to the fourth respondent or to file a Writ Appeal questioning the interim arrangement proposed by the learned Single Judge. He also stated that on 18.07.2014, pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge, his client has entered into agreement with the third respondent and commenced the user charges collection operation by setting up equipment. The counsel for the third respondent also supports the stand of the fourth respondent.
Considering the fact that the appellant has not even participated in the bidding process wherein the fourth respondent emerged as successful bidder, we are of the view that the appellant prima facie has no locus to question the award of contract to the fourth respondent. Its right, if any, was to collect user fee for the above stretch only for a period of three months after 25.03.2014 or till new agency selected in the tender process commences its toll operations. Admittedly, new arrangement has came into existence pursuant to order of the learned Single Judge and an agreement has now been entered into on 18.07.2014 by 3rd respondent with 4th respondent. In view of this, appellant has no right to collect the user fee charges any more and so it cannot question the order of the learned Single Judge either.
Therefore, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
30th JULY, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ kvni M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J