The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Peti:ioner: SRI C. RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for ResponCents: SRI R. ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC The Court made the following: ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK IVRIT PETITION No.146O1 OF 2025 ORDER: With the consent of the parties, this Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage itself

2. Aggrieved by the action of respondent No.3 in issuing revocation order dated 23.04 .2025 by imposing conditions, the present Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the subject matter of this Writ Petition ls squarely covered by the order of this Court passed in W.P.No.1313i of 2O25, dated O2.O5.2O25, and requests this Court to pass similar order in the present Writ PeLition also. The same is not seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. 5, In view of the above submissions and for the reasons alike in the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.13131 of 2O25, dated O2.O5.2O25, this Writ Petition is disposed of, duly confirming the impugned revocation order dated 23.O4.2025, however, directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct his business 2 PK, J q, 14601 2025 subject to hl ng an undertaking to the effect that he w ill pay the dues of Rs.2,83,322 /_ ln s1x outstanding equal monthly Payable on or before lOrh of instalments, ever i month, commencing t-om May, 202S Miscellir eeous petitions pending, if any, shall sta .rcl closed There shall bt: no order as to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/.N. RAJAGOPAL DEPUIY REGISTRAR secrlk''offrcea To, 1 2 3 The Managing [)irector, Telangana State Road Transport Corp rration, Bus Bhavan, Mushcerabad. Hyderabad The Executjve [rirector, Hyderabad Zone, Telangana State Rorrd Transport Corporation, H,rrJerabad The Deputy Regional IM?!qgu, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Ranga Reddy Region, MGBS, Hyderabad

4. One CC to Sri tl 5. One CC to Sri ll 6. Two CD Copier; Ramachandra Raju Advocate [OPUC] Anurag, SC for TGSRTC, Advocate (OPUC) (ALONG WITH COPY WP.No.13131 OF 2025) MBC BS . I t--' CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED: A210512025 t' i ^i- i) I1 -r f: ,..\ cF t-<il.- . tr '(.. , ( t: \\) li " ll .s *\ \'c \ lii_'i\ \+ / ORDER WP.No.14601 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOTJT COSTS tu( THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK IIRIT PETITION No.13131 of 2025 OR.DER: This Writ Petition is frled seeking the following relief "-.. declaring the action of the 2'd respondent- vide his order no P4l L22(59) I 2O22-RR dated 16.04.2025 in so far as it relates to imposing a condition for revocation of termination of license of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay all dues of license fee and the 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 license of the petitioner unsustainable, violative of articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and ....... ." 2l Heard Mr. C.Rama Chaldra Raju, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, 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 Ma-hathma Gandhi Bus Stand, Hyderabad, for a period of five years from 17.11.2022 to 16.11.2027 on payrnent of license fee of Rs.a,15,500/- per month subject to enhancement and presently the petitioner is paying the enhanced license fee, including GST, of a sum of Rs.5,5O,OO0/- per month and conducting his business. While so, respondent No.2 vide order dated O2.O4.2O25 l:.as terminated the license of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is selling unauthorized items, Ieaving other license holders of about 40 PK, J wP 13131_2025 stalls who are also selling unauthorized items. Furth er, at the request of the petitioner dated 04.O4.2025, respondent No.2 has passed the i;rrpugned order dated 16.O4.2025 revoking the termination orrler dated O2.O4.2O25 by putting unlarvful condition that the petitior-rer has to pay dues of license fee and also t he license fee for the interregnum period from the date of terminal ion of his license till the <late of reopening of his sta-ll, during which period the stall was closerl due to termination of license, ivhich is highly arbitrar5r and illegal. Learned counsel further sub rnits that respondent No.:2 having rcalized his wrong in termir: ating the petitioner's lice rrse and having decided to rectify his rr istake by revoking the te:rrrination order is not at all justified rn pr rssing the conditional ordr:r of revocation by putting a condition for p ayment of license fee ',r.,hi<'h has nothing to do with the termination of license of the petitioner. Once, respondent No.2 himself has re zoked the termination orck:r dated 02 .04.2025, it must be absolut : without any further or r.ew conditions and imposition of new co:rdition in the impugned revocation order is totally unwarrante,l, highly unjustified, ar titrary, illegal and unsustainable. Fr rrther, a procedure rs e.-rvisaged under clause 28 of License De ed dated

28.12.2022 for recovery of license fee dues. As per saicl ,:lause, in case of dues, senrice of one month notice in advance to th: licensee is prescribed. I\o such notice is served on the petitioner o:.dering to 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 with 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. 4l Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not paid the full license fee as agreed and fell 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 02.O4.2025 was revoked on 76.04.2025 considering the explarration of the petitioner dated 04 .O4.2025 wherein he categorically admitted selling of unauthorized items and has further pleaded that he will not repeat the same. Further, the condition imposed by the respondents is in terms of the Circular instructions of the Corporation vide Circular No.S /2O22-OPD(M&C), dated ),5.O3.2O22, wherein the respondent authorities are authorized to revoke the termination of license to the licensee subject to conditions that alt the dues accrued have to be pajd with interest as well as the license fee sha-ll also be collected for the interregnum period. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing -4 PK, J llP 13131 2025 condition whik) passing revocation order is justified as tht: petltioner is not paying dr-Les from November,2022. 5) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner subnrits that in an earlier occasion when the authorities have terminated [he license of the petitron,:: on the ground of non pal,rnent of licen se fee, the petitioner has rrpproached this Court and filed W.P.No.75 i2 of 2023 disputing the cuantum of license fee dues and this Court vide order

21..03.2023 hzLs; granted interim suspension of the tcrmination notice dated 2t .O2.2O23, however, subject to payment of license fee for the month ol'Febmary, 2023, by the petitioner within r period of one week ther:of. Learned counsel further contends z s per the Circular dated 15.O3.2022, ooly in cases where revoca _ion is on account of defreult in payment of license fee, the q restion of imposition of condition of clearance of dues while ordering revocation woul,l arise. But, in the present the tennina tion is on account of selling of unauthorized items. Therefore, th: Circular dated 15.03.2C21,2 cannot be made applicable to the cz se of the petitioner. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions male by the respective parti,:s and perused the material on record. 7l As can br: seen from the record, the license of the petitioner was terminatec vide proceedings No.p4 / 122(59) 12022_I,,.R, dated, l l I 5 PK, J wP 13131 2025 O2.O4.2O25, on the ground that he was selling unauthorized items viz., Tea, Tiffins, Cool drinks, biscuits & samosa, duly encroaching the extra open space of 4X3 feet area for conducting the tea business. It 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 tirne 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 i.ssue, then again I had sold tea a-rrd samosas because I have heavJr rent of Rs.5,5O,O00/- (including GST) but now again I removed all the items arrd 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 five la&hs) 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 ord.er 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

15.03.2022 deals with revocation arising on account of termination 6 PK, J u'P 13131 2025 for default in layment of license fee, and not on accolrn t of selling unauthorized :tems, the same cannot be countenanced. For better understanding of the matter, relevant portion of Circ rlar dated

15.O3.2022 is :'t:produced hereunder: "2) to revoke, but only once, the orders of terminatior r to any particulat ,i,:ensee (either regular/DOT stalls) for de:autt in payment of licence fee or for any other violation of telms and conditions cf the agreement subject to the following conc itions: r) iD Clearance of the licence fee dues accrued ir rcluding intr:rregnum period (by way of rent, GST, electn :ity and wat e ,r charges) with penal interest, till the clat : of re- ope rLing of the stall after revocation. Thr license fee for the interregnum penod i.e., f .om the dat: of termination till reopening shall be collecte 1 before per -nitting to re-open. iii) Suc h stall should not have been included ir-r thr tender not;fication published consequent to termination.,, (emphasis added) 10) From the above, it is clear that Circular dated 1t;.03.2022 also dea-ls with :ases relating to violation of terms and cor ditions of agreement. Furiher, the Circular dated 15.O3.2022 is also mentioned in r.he agreement dated 2g.12.2022 enteretl by the parties and the .refore the Circular also forms part of a greement dated 28.12.202,,'.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the contention of the pettioner that Circul ar dated -'7 PK, J wP 13131_2025

15.03.2022 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner is unsustainable arrd liable to be set aside. 11) Further, in his letter dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner himself has admitted about selling of unauthorized items ald also encroachment for conducting his business. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conditions imposed in the impugrred revocation order cannot be faulted with or cannot be treated as onus as the revocation itself is at the instance/request of the petitioner. However, to balance the equities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted time for payment of the dues. L2) Therefore, while confirming the impugned revocation order dated 16.O4.2025, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to conduct his business subject to Iiling 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, 2025. 13) Since the qlrantum 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. Februar5r and March 2025, th,e petitioner is directed to pay the said due amount in six equal monthly insta-llments, as stated in para L2 above. However, for recovery of 8 PK, J wP_ 13131-2025 \ I the remaining amount, the respondents are at liberty to follow due process of law. f4) With the eLbove observations, the Writ Petition is dls rtosed ol Miscellar r:ous petitions pending, if any, shall sta td closed No costs. Date 02-(t:;-2025 Issue C.C. bv 06 05.2025 PULLA K/IRTHIK, J