Another v. SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

Judgment

1. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its Managing Director Bus Bhavan Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2 3 4 The Dy Regional IManager, fGSRTC Warangal region Region Warangal The Depot Manager, TGSRTC Jangaon Depot and District Namala Raju, S/o kistaiah age.45 years, occ.Bussiness R/o vadlakonda Nagaom District.cell .9959606761. ...RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ Order or Direction more particularly one rn the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in issuing show cause notice for termination of contract license agreement No.T2l1221(24) 2024- RIU.WL dated '1 0-08-2024 and without considering the reply of the petitioner date 29-06-2025 with regard to Stall No, 3 at Jangaon Bus Station jangaon that the petitioner's Iicence Deed is valid till 09-08-2029 the action of the respondent No.2 and 3 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 3004 of the Constitutron of lndia and consequently direct the Respondent to consider the reply of the petiitoner dated 29-06-2025 & 28-08-2025 and to pass lA 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 grant stay of all fufther procedings LR.NO.T2i '1 22 (24)12024 DATED 10-08-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition and to pass lA NO: 2 OF 20:15 Between: 1- Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Rep by its lt4anaging Director Bus Bhavan Musheerabad Hyderabad.

2. The Dy Regional [Vanager, TGSRTC Warangal region Region Warangal. 3. The Depot ltzlanager, TGSRTC Jangaon Depot and District ...Vacate petitioner / respondents AND G.Venkat. S/o Man Jangaon Bus stand and District. ) RYo age.50 years, occ.Bussines Licensee of popcorn stall ln H.No.1-1 0-142131111, Grain Market Road, Jangaon Town ...Respondent / Petitioner Namala Raju, S/o kistaiah age.45 years, occ.Bussiness Rl/o vadlakonda Nagaom District.cell .9959606761 . ...Respondent / Respondent 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 pleased to Vacate the lnterim Orders daled 04.09.2025 passed in l.A.No.1 of 2025 in W.P.No.26690 of 2O25 and dismiss the Writ Petition with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. G RAJESHWAR RAO Counsel for the Respondent's No's 1 TO 3 : SRI N. CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TGSRTC Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 :--- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.2669O OF-2O25 OR.DER: Petitioner was awarded the license to run Popcorn Stall No.2 at Jangaon Depot for a monthly fee of Rs.1,05,006/, (excluding electricity, water, GST, and maintenance charges) lrom 10.08.2024 to 09.O8.2O29. On 20.05.2025, Respondent No.4 ancl other stall owners made fake documents and tried to force thc Petitioner to give up the license, but the petitioner refused. Petitioner filed complaints ,"vith the police regeLrding this harassment' Despite the Petitioner's response to a notice lrom Respondent No.3 dared 24.06.2025, Respondent No.2 issued a show-cause notice on 20.Og.2O2S to terminate the license without considering the petitioner's repry. The ricense is va.lid until 09.08.2O29, and the termination attempts are Hence, this Writ pe tition. unl u stified.

2. Heard Mr. G. Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner anC Sri N.Chanclra Shekar, learned Standing Counsel for respondcnt Nos. I to 3. perused the record. \- \' e-- ---- NBK.I - tvP:6690 201: -l

3. Learned Standing Counsel for TGSR?C. for respondents filed counter. affidavit stating that petitior:er was granted a license to run thc popcorn stall at Jangaon Bus Station iiom 07.o8.2024 to 06.08.2029, with a tnonthiy fee and additional charges. Respondent No.4 a complaint alleging that petitioner sub-let the stall a partnership agreement, through which violates the license terms that forbid sub-letting or allowing others to use the stall. In respcnse, the Corporation issued a Show Cause Notice on 24.A6.2025. Although rhe petitioner replied on 29.oG.2025, it was ronnd unsatisfactory, so a second Show Cause Notice lr,as issued on 20.0g.2025. The petitioner submitted another repl1, on 28.08.2025. Both rcpiies rvill be considered before a final decision is made. Issuing Sirow Cause Notices is part of the proper legal prccess ernd gives the petitioner a chance to explain their side. Since no final order has been made yet, filing a writ petition at this stage is premature and not maintainable.

4. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Director and Another Ys, Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and antothert, it i-s hcld as follos,s: t(2004) 3 Suprcnre Courl Casc;440 --------- I I NL}K.I wP 26690 1025 " \:Xi "";f;;:,X,?.2 "ff;f ';::it':# '' rh is c., u rt in a t o. ra e nracLice ol the Hiqh couns , """'':::,:;' -"tiaes slalling Z::;:;i;,;;tio"ttty,oL-'!",",Zlii,o"iii!,,#ii,T"oro@ssto t naines as proposed ana r'jl.u:'::t.L:^:'")-) ;" n" oresence of r#;*:r,*ixrn;Yt'{":i}-{:::,ilz",::,r" c au se notice wo s tota u u.n o^na;;:;;; r;;";n in ue stiq.dte into wont of junsdi.ction t,, for the mere -nol i' ""::';-;;; lt,it Detitioner frlcrc. uit petitions shouo ; ; *. ! ! ^,.i : ^:,L ;'i:' i! ; iii lX", #"! nI * ' :; ;i ;; "' " " shoutd. inuariabtv ?,' 1"?\':"h,"niirt)a in the wit petition.. " nolice and toke all stanasnruql.tts';": on anu leqat 'ni o"I.iL"' "'r;"rtoin"d f";;;;; "i'la- ""n 'n" lteru issues al'so can be Y"1,)?{!,'!"",",X2:r:,:x::",';::;".;;i";caneuenbeursedbs the- recipient of the notrce n2tic3 initialtu' adiudicated bu the autholritu"ii"i"i before the aqqrieued *uta'ipi..o"'i \ c9t1l Further' when the Court posses on nrenm' order it shoutd be c.oreful to see that the statutont fun tioniint speaallu and speaftcallu con-stituted for the purpoie a're not' denuded of pouters and initialitu decide the matter and ensure that i ""tn".ii- ultimate relief which mau or mant not be finallu granted in the ,rAi,t p"tition is accorded- to the tuit petitioner euen at tlrc thresi,hotd bg the irLtenm protection, granted'" J Considering the submissions of both the learned counsel and a perusal of the records, it is evident that the petitioner's license is subject to the terms and conditions, including the prohibition on sub-letting. The respondents have issued shor,r, cause notices in accordance with the principles of natural justice, providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond. It may be noted that no fin a-l order has been passed by the competent authority, and the issuance of show cause notices cannot be held to be arbitrary OT il1egal. The petitioner's challenge to the shou, cause notices at this stage is premature and not maintainable, as also supported by the Judgment of ) Hon,ble SuPreme Cou Mohd.. Ghuto.m Ghou: i, special Director q.nd "qnother (Supra t), se and NII( r \\'P l,,0rr,2r;2i Another Vs. 6' In view of the abovo ,L^ shall be no order." ,r1"",",re writ petition is dismissed. There Miscellaneous petitions, ;p any, pending in this Writ ?etition, sha.ll stand closed. SD/.S. MALLIKARJUNA RAO rANT REGISTRAR SI ,TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER \ .J To, '1 . One CC to SRt. G RAJESHWAR RAO Advocate [OpUC] 2. One CC to SRI.N CHANDRA SHEKAR, SC FOR TGSRTC Advocate loPUcl

3. Two CD Copies & ASv BS HIGH COUFIT DATED:08/1 0t2025 ORDER WP.No.26690 of 2t025 WRTT I'ETITION IS DISNTISSED OF WITHOUT COST , {r,iE sr^ )4: a 6 04 n0v xE i iL ,9crcHe