High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in cancelling the MEESEVA Franchise of the petitioner (TS-FKR004), vide proceedings dated 25.03.2025 and Proceedings No. D/399/2025, without issuing show cause notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause contrary to the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of Telangana lnformation Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011 and the uniform penalty structure as envisaged in Li. No. 633/ESD/Rurall2O14, dated 1510312014 issued by the Respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 to release the seized material of the petitioner's MeeSeva Franchisee (TS-FKR004) and permit him to continue operations without causing any hindrance. lA NO: 'f OF 2025 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 suspend the impugned proceedings D139912025, dated 2503.2025 of the 2nd respondent and not to take any coercive steps persuant to the same, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JOGINIPALLY SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR INFORMATTON TECHNOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR Counsel for the Respondent No.4: - REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1174O of 2025 ORDER It is stated that the petitioner has been engaged i.n the' business of Meeseva Franchise at Vemulawada Tou,n and Mandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District having been selected in terms of the policy laid down by the Government under various G.O.s proceedings No.D I 399 I 2025 since, 2017 and subsequently, the said Franchise has been renewed every year uide Franchise No.TS-FKROO4 on 3 i.O3.2O23 after collecting necessary annual maintenance at Rs.5,O00/-. It is further stated that, without issuing aly notice and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have passed the impugned order uide proceedings No.D/399 12025, dated 25.03.2025 cancelling the Meeseva Franchise, on the ground that the petitioner is not doing his service properly and involved in multiple cases against Government and as per Para 2 (a) i(a)(c)(d)) of Government Memo No.467 llTBe,ClMeeSeva/2o16, dated 28.12.2016, the petitioner is disqualified to be continued as Meeseva Franchise as he has violated the conditions imposed by the Government.

2. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government 2 CVBR. J Wp_l1740 2025 \ Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos- 1 to 5 and lr,ith their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, before passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities dicl not conduct any enquiry with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner and the respondent authorities also not issued any notice and the said action on the part of the respondent authorities amounts to violation of 1:rinciples of natural justice. lrarned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue, on 4 . instructions, would submit that against the petitioner, number of complaints have been submitted by the villagers stating that the petitioner is not properly rendering services and therefore, the very purpose and object of establishment of Meeseva Franchise in the said village is defeated. Hence, the'respondent authorities have cancelled the said Franchise.

5. This Court has carefully examined the impttgned orde r passed by respondent No.2 cancelling the Meeseva Franchise of the petitioner. Except stating that a complaint has been received that the petitioner is not rendering his services properly J CVBR, J wp I 1740 2025 and involved in multiple cases against the Government, no enquiry has been conducted. It is further seen from the impugned order that the complaint, which is the ba sis [or' cancellation of the Meeseva Franchise, was also not communicated to the petitioner nor he was called for any explanation for the proposed action of cancellation of Meescva Franchise. Pima facie, the impugned order passcd by respondent No.2 is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice and on the sole ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. However, if the petitioner has violated any terms and conditions of the Government in Memo No.467 IITE&C lMeeSeva/2O 16, dated 28.12.2016, respondent No.2 is at liberty to issue show- cause notice duly supplying all the material which is the basis for issuance of show-cause notice and'after submissron of the explanation by the petitioner, pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (O3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of Ihis order. f 4 CVBR, J Wp 11740 2025 6 With the above observations, this Writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs 7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTTON OFFICER To 1 2 J 4 E 6 7 o o The Principal Secretary lnformation Technology Department. Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana The District Collector, Rajanna - Sircilla District The Commissioner, ESD (MEE SEVA) Road No. 7, Ba\ara Hills, Hyderabad The Managing Director, Telangana State Technology Services Ltd., Registered office at 2nd Floor HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad. The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District. One CC to SRI JOGINIPALLY SAI KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies PSK. GJP tu HIGH COURT DATED:21 10412025 ORDER WP.No.11740 of 2025 !,,J gr-- .$ $* q \- '\'t'.-;y'' :-.-' I, a' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q\