The High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent vide his Order dated 24tO612025 is in violation of the order of this Honourable Court dated O2tOSt2O25 in W.P.No.14615 ot 2O25, highly unjust, malafide, discriminatory, illegal and unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the termination of the licence of the petitioner on par with the revocation orders passed in respect of Stalls bearing Nos.31 , 51 and 28 in MGBS, Hyderabad. NO:'l F 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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his stall bearing No.34 in MGBS Hyderabad, by suspending the order of the 2nd respondent dated 24.06.2025 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for revocation of termination of his licence, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI C.RAMACHANDRA RA"rU Counsel for the Respondents : SRt R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) .W.P.NO:146rs oF 2025 Between: R.Narender, Son of Venkatesham Stall, Bearing No.34 in MGBS, Hyd , Aged about 65 years, Licence Holder of Book erabad. .....PETITIONER Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabid.

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Managing Director, 2 El:gyliyg Director, Hyderabad Zone, Tetangana State Road Transport 3. DeputyRegional Manager, Telangana. State Road Transport Corporation, uorporafl on, Hyoerabad. Ranga Reddy Region, MGBS, Hyierabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Arricle 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decraring the action of the 3rd respondent vide his order No.P4h22(10)12021-RR dared 02.04.2025 terminating the ricence of the petitioner is highly unwarranted, uniust, arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of lndia or in alternative direct the 2nd respondent to revoke the order daled o2.o4.2o2s passed by the 3rd respondent terminating the licence of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. |.A.NO:1 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 direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to run his stall i.e., Book Stall, bearing Stall No.34 of MGBS Hyderabad, by suspending the operation of the order of the 3rd respondent dated 02.04.2025 terminating the licence of the petitioner, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counselfor the Petitioner : SRt C.RAMACHANDRA RA|U Counsel for the Respondents : SRI R.ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) The Court made the following COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION N 78 and 14615 OF 2o25 COMMON ORDER: ' [n view of the commonality of the issue and grievance, these Writ Petitions are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way of this common order.

2. The Writ Petition No.2O478 of 2025 is filed challenging the iliegal action of the 2"4 respondent in rejecting his representation for revocation of licence termination, in willful disobeciience of this Court's interim order dated O2.O5.2O25 in W.P.No.14615 of 2025. This Court had directed the 2nt respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 09.O4.2O25 for revocation of licence termination without discrimination and on par with similarly placed licence holders, specifically in W.P.No.1313L of 2025. Despite this, the 2"d respondent rejected the request after 53 days (on

24.06.2025), citing lack of power under Circular No.5 of 2022. This is contrary to the Court's direction to act within 1O days. The petitioner holds Licence No.34 at MGBS, I{yderabad, valid from O8.O4.2O21 to

07.O4.2026,wit}r a current monthly licence fee of Rs.1,75,329/-.

3. The W.P.No.14615 of 2025 is filed challenging the illegat action of the 3',i respondent in terminating his Book Stali licence (Stall 2 NBK,J WP_Nos 20478 and 14615 of2025 No.34, MGBS, Hyderabad), despite no valid justification, and the inaction of the 2'd respondent in considering his representation for revocation of the termination order. The petitioner was granted a licence from o9.o4.2o2L to o2.04.2026, initially at <1,32,o0o/- per month, currently paying Rs.1,75,3 29 l- per month after enhancement. A show Cause Notice was issued on 04.11 .2024 alleging sale of unauthorised items. In response, petitioner submitted an explanation on 29.11.2024 denying the ailegations, affirming compliance with licence terms. Despite this, the 3'd respondent terminated the licence on o2.o4.2o25 without properly considering the explanation. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation dated o9.o4.2o25 to the 2"d respondent, who has the power to revoke the termination under circular No.5 of 2022, but no action was taken.

4. Heard Sri Rama chandra Rdu, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing counsel for TGRTC for respondents. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for respondents in w.P.No.2o478 of 2025 filed counter affidavit stating the writ petition is not maintainable as it concerns a contractual dispute involving factual issues, which are not suitable for writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's licence for Stall No.34 was terminated for selling unauthorised items, and the power J NBK,J WP_Nos_20478 and 14615 of2025 to revoke such termination is discretionary. The respondent claims compliance with the Court's earlier direction to consider the petitioner's representation and denies any violation of court orders. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a habitual defaulter with arrears of Rs.10,34,563/- and his reliance on recent app-generated invoices ignores earlier dues. A fresh tender for the stall has already been issued, and the petition is seen as an attempt to evade payment and mislead the Court. Hence, the respondent seeks dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Considering the submissions and materials on record, this Court finds that the 2"d respondent, having been directed earlier to consider the petitioner's representation for revocation of licence termination without discrimination and within a specified time frame, failed to comply with the Court's order in a timely manner. Although the power to revoke the termination is discretionary, such cliscretion must. be exercised reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the matter be remanded back to Responcient No. 2 for fresh adjudication in accordance with law and after affording the petitioner a fair opportunity of hearing.

7. Accordingly, these writ petitions are disposed of and the matters are remanded back to the 2.d respondent with a direction to I ( ,EF-- 4 NBK,J WP_Nos 20478 and 14615 of2025 reconsider the petitioner's representation dated o9.O4.2o25 afresh and decide it strictly in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The 2n1 respondent shall ensure that the petitioner is afforded a fair opportunity of hearing and that the decision is communicated in writing with reasons. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these V/rit Petitions, shall stand closed. / //TRUE COPY// SRINIVASA REDDY OFFICER

3. 4 5. 6. Two CD CoPies SA PMK ([ HIGH COURT i0810912025 \ I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.2047 14615 ot 2025 a 6E Sla; T ) '.) ,\. t ),. 22[tcM ,; r.l DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS o cOSTS. (c 6\\ .1.. tf