No Legal Right to Block a Competitor's Yatri Plaza: Allahabad HC Dismisses UPSRTC Contractor's Tender Challenge

Allahabad High Court holds that a Yatri Plaza operator's purely commercial contract with UPSRTC confers no right to prevent the Corporation from floating a fresh tender for a rival facility on the same route.

A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Vivek Saran, dismissed a writ petition filed by M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall challenging a U.P. State Road Transport Corporation e-tender that would introduce a second Yatri Plaza for AC buses on the Moradabad-Delhi route near Gajraula. The judgment, delivered on 17 July 2026, frames a clear boundary: a contractor whose relationship with UPSRTC rests entirely on a commercial contract cannot invoke Article 226 to protect commercial turf. The bench resolved four discrete issues against the petitioner, finding no statutory right, no violation of binding policy, and no threat to public interest.

The Dispute Before the Court

The petitioner, M/s Moga Dhaba With Family Hall, had been operating a Yatri Plaza for AC buses on the Moradabad-Delhi route near Gajraula since 19 October 2024 under a three-year contract with UPSRTC, awarded through a competitive bidding process.

Almost a year into that contract, on 16 July 2025, UPSRTC issued an e-tender inviting bids for another Yatri Plaza for AC buses on the same Moradabad-Delhi route near Gajraula. The corporation simultaneously tendered two further Yatri Plazas—one on the Moradabad-Bareilly route and one on the Moradabad-Aligarh route—but those were for general (non-AC) buses. Technical bids were opened on 5 August 2025; financial bids were to follow.

The petitioner moved this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the e-tender dated 16 July 2025 and a writ of mandamus directing UPSRTC to act on the petitioner's representation dated 17 July 2025. An impleadment application was also disposed of at the outset, with the Court allowing two additional parties to be arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

The Petitioner's Case

Counsel for the petitioner pressed two main arguments. First, the new Yatri Plaza was said to violate the Corporation's own policy dated 26 November 2020, which, as argued, permits an additional Yatri Plaza on a route only when more than 300 buses ply that route. The petitioner contended that only around 60 buses run on the Moradabad-Delhi route.

Second, the petitioner argued that opening a competing facility at the same spot would divide customers, erode the commercial viability of the existing Yatri Plaza, and thereby harm a contractor who had already invested a substantial sum on the faith of the 2024 contract.

UPSRTC's Response

Counsel for the respondents countered on every point. The contract dated 19 October 2024, they submitted, contains no clause prohibiting or restraining the Corporation from opening another Yatri Plaza for AC buses on the same route or at the same location. The contract is purely commercial, and no provision grants the petitioner an exclusive right over the route.

On the policy, the respondents argued that the circular dated 26 November 2020 is merely an administrative guideline issued by the Managing Director and carries no statutory force. More pointed still, they argued that Clause A-2 of that circular does not impose the 300-bus threshold for AC bus Yatri Plazas at all—the threshold applies only to general (non-AC) service. The tender notice itself, at Clause 6, expressly treats AC and non-AC Yatri Plazas as separate categories.

On the question of bus numbers, the respondents disputed the petitioner's figure of 60 buses, noting that the list had been drawn from a private website, www.mealonroad.com, and did not account for buses other than those operated by UPSRTC itself.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Vivek Saran, writing the judgment, structured the analysis around four issues and disposed of each against the petitioner.

On locus and legal right. The bench examined the contract dated 19 October 2024 in full. It found that the relationship between the petitioner and UPSRTC is “purely that of commercial nature.” The mere fact that UPSRTC, as an instrumentality of the State, may fall within Article 12 of the Constitution does not ipso facto convert every contract it enters into a statutory contract. None of the covenants in the 2024 contract restrain the Corporation from opening another Yatri Plaza for AC buses in the vicinity.

The bench applied the Supreme Court's holding in Vinoy Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, reported at (2001) 4 SCC 734, which instructs courts to confine the exercise of writ jurisdiction to cases where a legal wrong or injury to the petitioner's own rights is demonstrated. A writ under Article 226 lies for enforcement of Part III rights or for “any other purpose,” but that residuary purpose does not extend to protecting purely commercial interests that find no anchor in statute or fundamental right. The petitioner, having not participated in the impugned tendering process and holding only contractual rights, could not demonstrate any legal wrong caused by the new advertisement.

On the 26 November 2020 policy. The Court found that the circular is an administrative guideline issued by the Managing Director, not made under any statute. Guidelines lacking statutory force are not binding, and their violation does not automatically confer a right to challenge a decision made in disregard of them.

More critically, Clause A-2 of the circular, read alongside Clause 6 of the tender notice dated 4 July 2025, makes plain that the 300-bus threshold applies to general bus routes, not to AC bus services. The new tender relates exclusively to an AC bus Yatri Plaza. The petitioner's reliance on the 300-bus criterion was therefore, in the Court's view, misconceived.

The dispute about whether 60 or more buses actually ply the route was left unresolved: the figure from the petitioner's website source was disputed, and contested factual questions of this kind cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

On arbitrariness and the scope of judicial review in tender matters. The bench drew on the Supreme Court's exposition in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa and Others, (2007) 14 SCC 517, which holds that courts exercising judicial review in tender matters will not interfere if the decision is bona fide and in public interest, even where some procedural irregularity is alleged. Petitioner's counsel could not point to any arbitrariness, bias, or malafide in the Corporation's conduct in issuing the e-tender.

On public interest. The bench held that opening a second Yatri Plaza for AC buses in the vicinity of the existing one is not against public interest. Competition between operators would likely result in better services for travellers halting on the Moradabad-Delhi route. Issue No. 3 was accordingly decided against the petitioner as well.

The Significance of the Contractual-Statutory Distinction

The judgment's central analytical move is its insistence on distinguishing statutory rights from contractual ones before the gate of Article 226. The bench did not deny that UPSRTC is an instrumentality of the State or that writ jurisdiction extends beyond fundamental rights enforcement. What it denied is that a commercial grievance dressed in the language of policy violation can substitute for a demonstrable legal right.

The petitioner's contract gave it a right to operate a Yatri Plaza for three years. It did not give the petitioner a guaranteed catchment of customers or an exclusive franchise on the route. The absence of a non-compete clause in the 2024 contract was treated as determinative: the Corporation remained free to tender additional facilities, and the petitioner's remedy for any commercial loss, if actionable at all, lies in a civil court rather than in writ jurisdiction.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed as being without merit. All four issues framed by the bench were decided against the petitioner. The interim order, if any was in operation, was vacated. No costs were imposed.