The High Court · 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his stall i.e, super market, bearing .:, stall No. 31 of l\4GllS Hyderabad, by suspending the operation of the condition imposed in the revccation order of the 2nd respondent dated 16.(t4.2025, relating to payment of dues of license fee, including for the period fr:m the date of termination of the lice,nse till the reopening of the stall of the petrtiorer Counsel for the Pe{itioner: SRI C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for Respondents: SRI R. ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the r following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.13131 of 2o25 This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: "... declaring the action of the 2"d respondent- vide his order no P4/122159)/2022 RR dated 16.04.2025 in so far as it relates to imposing a.condrtion for revocation of termination of license of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay all dues of license fee ald ttre license fee from the date of termination of license till reopening of the stall is, highly unwarranted, capricious, highly unjust, highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the Iicense of the petitioner unsustainable, violative of articles 14 an:d 21 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and .-......." 2\ Heard Mr. C.Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioncr, and Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel, for respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted license for running stall No.31, C.C. Supermarket in Mahathma Gandhi Bus Stand, Hyderabad, for a period of five years from 17.1 1.2022 Lo 76.17.2027 on payment of license fee of Rs.4, 15,500/ - per month subject to enhancement and presently the petitioner is paying the enhanced license fee, including GST, of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- per month and conducting his business. While so, respondent No.2 vide order dated O2.O4.2O25 }:.as terminated the license of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is selling unauthorized items, leaving other license holders of about 40 2 PK, J \\,,P 13131 202s arbitrary and illegal. stalls \^.ho aro also selling unauthorized items. t,urtl rer, at the request of the petitioner dated O4.O4.2O25, respondenr No.2 has passed thc : rnpugned order dated 16.O4 .20,25 revoking the termination orcer dated O2.O4.2025 by putting unlawlu condition that the petitiorrer has to pay dues of ricense fee and also :he license fee for the intt:r-regnum period from the date of termrna ion of his Iicense til1 the late of reopening of his stall, during which period the stall rvas clos : I due to termination of license, rvhich is highly Learned counsel further sr,rb miLs that respondent Nc.2 having realized his wrong in tcrmir ating the petitioner's licr,nse and having decideci to rectrfl. his n Listake by revoking the termination order is not at all justified in p rssing the conditronal ord,:: of revocation by putting a condilion for payment of license fee u,hi<:h has nothing to do wilh thc termination of license of the petitione r. c)nce, respondent No.2 himser| has rc roked the termination orrLt:r dated O2.O4.2O25, it must be absolut: without any further or r e\\. conditions and imposition of nelrr co rdition in the impugned revocation order is totally unu,arrante 1, highly unjustilied, ar ritrary, illegai and unsustainable. Fr rrther, a procedure is e:riiisaged under clause 2g of Liccnse De ed dated 28.12.2022 for r,:covery of license fee dues. As pcr sarcl clause, in case of dues, se r.,zice of one month notice in advance to th, r licensee is prescribed. Nc, such notice is served on the petitioner oidering to I I -J PK, J wP 13131 2025 pay the dues and the respondents cannot link the dues with revocation order. The subject matter of termination of license fee is altogether different and is nothing to do with the revocation of termination order passed for selling unauthorized items. The dues of license fee shall be dealt u,ith separately by following due process of law. Thus, the learned counsel prays this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the conditions imposed in the revocation order dated 16.O4.2025 imposed by respondent No.2. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not paid the full license fee as agreed and fe11 due of an amount of Rs.19,99,665/-, which are pending from the month of November, 2022. He further submits that the termination order dated O2.O4 .2O25 was revoked on 16.04.2025 considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 04.O4.2025 wherein he categorically admitted selling of unauthorized items and has further pleaded that he u,ill not repcat the same. Further, the condition imposed by the respondents is in terms of the Circular instructions of the Corporati.on vide Circular No.5l2O22-OPD(M&C), dated

15.O3.2022, wherein the respondent authorities are authorized to revoke the termination of license to the licensee subject to conditions that all the dues accrued have to be paid with interest as well as the license iee shall also be collected for the interregnum period. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing 4 PK, J wI 13131-2025 condition u,hil: passing revocation order is justified as th: petitioner rs not pal.ing c ues from Novernber, 2022. 5) In reply, .he learned counsel for the petitioner subrrits that in an earlier occasion when the authorities have terminzrtcd the license of the petition tr on the ground of non payment o[ iiccn se fee, thc petitioner has rpproached this Court and filed W.p.No.7 S >2 of 2023 disputing the cuantum of license fee dues and this Court vide order 21.o3.2023 he si granted interim suspension or. the tr.rmination notice dated 22.O2.2023, however, subject to pavmcnt of icense fee for the month c f February, 2023, by the petitioncr rvrthir-r r r period of one week therr:rrf. Learned counsel further contends a s per the Circular dated t5.03.2O22, onlv in cases wherc rcr.ocal ion is on account of delault in payment of license fec, ritr: c+ estion ol imposition of <:ondition of clearance of dues rvhile ordering revocation woulc arise. But, in the present the tcrnrinarion is on account of selli rg of unauthorized items. Theretorc, the Circular dated 15.03.20 jl2 cannot be made applicable to the ca ;e of the petitioner. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissrcn_rs mace by the respective partie s and perused the material on record 7) As can be s;een from the record, the license of the 5.etitioner uias terminated vicle proceedings No.p4l 122(59) /2022 RIl, dated 5 PK, J wP 13131_2025 /.,

02.04.2025, on the ground that he was selling unauthorized items viz., Tea, Tifhns, Cool drinks, biscuits & samosa, duly encroaching the extra open space of 4X3 feet area for conducting the tea business- I1: further reveals that in an earlier occasion he was already imposed with penalties 8) The record further reveals that petitioner has submitted a representation seeking to cancel the termination order duly admitting his guilt. Relevant portion of the said letter reads under: "... I respect your word and removed unauthorized items that time itself for over a month (attaching the pictures of my stall along with this letter) but as there was no action been taken regarding this issue, then again I had sold tea and samosas because I have healy rent of Rs.5,50,000/- (including GST) but now again I removed all the items and it won't be repeated in future. Therefore please it's a humble request to kindly cancel my termination letter by keeping my SD amount of Rs.35 lakhs (Thirty hve lakhs) into consideration. I will do my business as per my agreement." 9) From the above, it is clear that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was selling unauthorized items i.e. tea and samosas. Further, considering his request and assurance not to repeat the same, the revocation order was passed by respondent No.2 in the light of Circular dated 15.03.2O22. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said circular dated t5.O3.2022 deals with revocation arising on account of termination 6- PK, J wI 13 13 1 2025 ( for default in p,2y11e.1 of license fee, and not on accour.t ol. selling unauthorized it.ems, the sarrre cannot be countenancecl. For better understar.rding of the matter, relevant portion of crrc urar dated 15.O3.2022 is reproduced hereunder: "2) to re r oke, but only once, the orders of terminatro 1 to .trry partrcular liccnsee (either regrlar/DOT stalls) for dr fau]t in pa],rncnt of licence fee or for any other violation of te rms and conditions of the agreement subject to the follor,r,rng con<.itions: i) ii) iii) Ck zrralce of the licence fee dues accrucd i tciurling int:rregnum period (by way of rent, GST, electricity ar_rd w'a-<:r changes) with penal interest, till tlre clat e of re opt,ning of the stall after revocation. Thc license fee for the interregnum period i.e. lrorn thc date of termination till reopening shall be collectel belore pernritting to re-open. Sucrh stal1 should not have been includcd in Lht tcr.rrler not fication published consequent to termination.,, (cmphasi: added) 10) F rom the above, it is clear that crrcurar dared r ;.03 .2022 also deals with cases relating to vioration of terms ancl cor ditions of agreement Further, the circular dated 75.o3.2022 is also mentioned in he agreement dated 2a.72.2O22 entere I b1, the parties and thr r.efore the Circular also forms part ol_ e greement dated 28.12 .2O2,,,./, . In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner that. Circullr clated i I i I I I _'7 PK, J wP 13131 2025

15.03.2022 cannot be rnade applicable to the case of the petitioner is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11) Further, in his letter dated O2.O4.2O25, the petitioner himself has admitted about selling of unauthorized items and also encroachment for conducting his business. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conditions imposed in the impugned revocation order cannot be faulted with or cannot be treated as onus as the revocation itself is at the instance / request of the petitioner. t However, to balance the equities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted time for payment of the dues. 12) Therefore, whilc conhrming the impugned revocation order dated 16.04.2O25, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to conduct his business subject to hling an undertaking to the effect that he will repay the dues in six equal monthly installments, payable on or before 10h of every month, commencing from May, 2O25. 13) Since the quantum of dues is not mentioned in the impugned revocation order dated 16.04.2025 and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has admitted in the reply that he is due of license for two months i.e. February and March 2025, the petitioner is directed to pay the said due amount in six equal monthly installments, as stated in para 12 above. However, for recovery of -8- PK, J \{rP 1313 1_2025 (l the remaining lmount, the respondents are at riberty ro iblow due process of law t4l With the tbove observations, the Writ petition is disposed o[ Misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, sha1l star Ld closed No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-hI. RAJAGOPAL DEPUIY REGISTRAR h sec/|6n oFFrcER

1. The Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Cor loration, Bus Bhavan, Ivlush eerabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Regional \,1anager, TSRTC, Ranga Reddy Region, tt4GBIi, Hyderabad 3. One CC to Sri (l Ramachandra Ra.ju Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri [1 Anur,ag (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copie rs; I To, IMBC BS i I l i I CC TODAY t a HIGH COURT DATED: 0210512025 { _t 'a 1l l-. s q- i:' l = '.)" e * ORDER WP.No.131it1 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION * WITHOUT COSTS .a