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 an appropriate writ, order or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents more particularly respondent No.2 in issuing proc.No.A3l2B11IESD(RR/ Complaints 12024) dated.O2l09l2025 by cancelling the petitioners Mee Seva Franchisee Center TS-Y041, running in the name and style of BBS Enterprises in a rented shop bearing Plot No.5, 1st Floor, Opp. District Central Library, Near Badangpet New [\/unicipality Office, Dawoodkhanguda, Balapur, R R Dist.. TG. on the ground of ltrlisuse of Securec Stationary mentioned at Para No.23 (2,t (6) in GO.Ms.No.4, dated.l -04-2025 of ITE and C Dept. ESDi(MeeSeva) Rules, even though the TGTS receipts does not comes under the definition of Sec:ured Stationary and without considering the explanation dated.24lO7l2O25, as highly arbitrary, bad, illegal and amounts to violation of the articles of the con,ctitution of lndia and principles of natur;al lustice and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to activate the petitioner's MeeSeva franclris:e center TS-Y041, running in the name and style of BBS Enterprises in a rentec shop Plot No.S, 1st Floor, Opp. District rlentral Library, Near Badangpet New Municipality Office, Dawoodkhanguda, Balapur. R R Dist., TG, forthwith. |.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under llection 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 impugr,ed proceedings vide No.A3i2B1 1/ES D(RR/ Complaints 12024) daled. 0210912025, issued by the respondent No.2, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Per.iti,rner : SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respr>ndent Nos.1 & 2 & 5 : GP FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the fc,llowing ORDER TIIE HON'BLE SMT..IUSTICE't. MADHAVI DEVI WRm PETITION No.2fi243 of 2025 otU)ER: 'I-his Writ Petition is filed challenging the irlpugned ptrceedirtgs No.43/2811/ESD/(RR/Complaints/2024) dated

01.09.101) issLred by respondent No.2, cancclling the pctitioncr's MeeSeva Franchisec Center TS. Y04 I , running in the nanie and stl le ol []BS Ilnterprises, situated in a rentcd shop bcarirrg Plot No.5, l" t1oor, Opp. District Central Library, Near Badangpet New iVlunicipality O{Ilce, Dawoodkhanguda, Balapur, R.R. District, as illcgal and arbitlarv and in violation olprincipies of natural -justice and conscclucntl)', to set aside the sarne and direct the rcspondents to reactiVate the petitioner's MeeSeva F ranchisce ccntre and to pass such othcr older or orders.

2. [,earncd counsel for the petitioner rcitc-ratcd the sr,rburissions rnade in the u,rit alfidavit. while the Ieanred Governrnent Pleader lbr lnfornration and Technology relied upon thc avennents nrade in the countcr atfidavit. 2 I'MDJ trP_28:4i 2015

3. Ilriel'fircls leading to the liling of the present Writ Petition are that thc prrtitiotrer u'as appointed as a MeeSeva lianchisee virlc agreernent !-\!'cutcd in the year 201i and claints to ltave been running the sr nrc without any conrplaint so [ar. lt is subrnitted that ir-r the nronth ol'June 1025. thc petitioner's rvit'e sLrf-fered certain health issues lrrd therefbre, he had instructed his operator, Mr.N.I)hor.i. lo take care ol- MccSeva (lcnter during his ahsencc On 19.06.11.)l ;. or-re lad)'. namell Nernali Meghana, approached the' pctitioner's :ssistant and erprc'ssed urgency lirl obtaining l Communitl and Date of tlirlh Certificatc li:rr attending TGEANTC'I'T counselling on the same day. Since thc' assistant did not havr ilrccss to the lVlc,-'Seva login withr.rut biornetric authenlicatiorl ol' the pctitioner and considering her crucial situatiorr. h.- l,rglred in tlrrough the citizen portal using a custotncr numbe| antl plocessed the sarnc' and instead of taking th!- prinlout on whitc pr,pcr', hc printed it on TGTS receipt bearing No.AA2975l! 1.1, ivhich was uploaded in internet and handed ovc.r the same to the said person. Later. she approached another MeeSeva Ccnire lbr obtaining a printout of the Cornmunity and l Mt)J wp 282.1.1-2025 3 Date of Birth Certificate, as the same was "any wherc print" status. I he operator at the relcvant MeeSeva Centre. upon noticing that the said docuurent u as printcd on a TGTS receipt inslead of r.vhite papcr, sharcd thc same in a Whatsapp group anrl respondent No.5 Iodged a couiplaint tlrrough e-rnail dated 03.07.2015 to respondent No.l. It is subrnitted that n,ithout any encluiry and only on the basis ol' Whatsapp rncssage dated 0l .07.2025, respondent No-2 issued a shorv cause notice on 18.07.2025. rvhich n'as servcd on thc pctitione r on 11.07.1025. -l'he petitioner claims to har e subnritted his explanation on 24.07.1025. [t is further submitted thal in allother instance, on 29.06.2025, a similar rnistake u,as committed in conncction rvith a 'fGI'S receipt for a citizen login service rendered to one Dhannakari Rajeshwari on I 1.06.2025 and on noticing the sarne in Whatsapp group on 26.07 .2025. the petitioner subnritled a represcntation dated 30.07.2025 to respondent No.2. stating that the said rnistake had occurred due to his absence and acknovvledged the same. In view of these two mistakes cornnritted by the petitioner, show cause notices were issued to tl-re petitioner and after considering his explanation wehrein he admitted to the ', -,-' 4 I-MDJ wp 28l.ll 2025 mistake and tendered an apology, the responderrts have taken action as pc'r r. i.O.Ms.No.4 dated l0.l I .2025 under llule 23 thereof and cancclleti the Ianchisee ol the petitioner. (-hallenging the same, the lrrr':dnt Writ l)etition has been tllcd.

4. On g.oing through the (i.O.l\4s.No..1 datcd 10.04.2025. this Court linds th.rt thcre is no dellnition of "securcd statjonary" in the said Ci.O. Ru!.,' 20 retl'rs to use ol'special stationcr)' in Elcctronic Servicc Dclir -'ry'. Rulc li rel'crs to penaltl' lor misrcpresentation, Rute 2-l (lX(r: rc-lcrs to nrisuse ol- securcd stationcrv. lvhich would amount to corrrnritting ol traud and entail remo.n,al ol the franchisee and legal p1p,,'gdure. Rule 22 rcl'ers to penaltl' firr committing fraud ,'vhich rc rcls as lirllow's " W'hoav,.'r knov,ingly or intentionally commits o fraud, like us irtg o.l' ll'[eeSeva hrand or providing L[eeSeva serv i c' r.,s tr., i t h out val id MeeScva author izat i ( tn cau.s i ng wrongfirl lo.ts in any Government agency or to ttse, by .fraudttlent misuse of the Electronic Servic'a L)elivety system. shall be punishable v,ith imprisonment term that my extcnd up to 3 years and shall also be liable to Jine up to Rs. i().0O0,- \ ', i/ - 5 IMDJ \\ p llil..ll l0f j

5. Leamed Govcmrrent l)leacler tbr lnlbrmation l echnology l-ras refcrred to the cerlitlcatcs issued by the petitioner, which do not contaiu thc authorizu-d agencl nurnbcr, whc'reas sirnilar ccrtiflcates issued by another agency mentions the authorized agent's rrurnber. 'l'hercfbre, according to hirn, the pctitioner has conrnrittcd fiaud under Rute Ii ol said G.O.

6. l'his (lourt finds that ncithe-r in the inrpugned order nor in the cor.rnter allldavit is there any re{'erence to an enquiry being conducted by the authorities to detcrmine the loss, ilany, incurred b_r- the Ciovcrnrnerlt due to nristake cornmitted by the petitioner or his assistance. 'l he petitioncr adrnits issuance of a TG'fS receipt but according to him, it is not a secured stationary and theretbre, the provisions o1'Rulc 13 canrrot bc invokcd. It is also noticed that no l'ee rvas collected on said receipt and no person has bcen i examincd to dernonslrate that thc pctitioner acceptcd any consideration for issuancc ol the same. Admittedly, the said individual did not take a printout or obtain the certificates ti'orn the petitioncr's MeeSeva centre. Evcn if it is accepted that there is certain use of TGTS stationery, this Court is of the opinion that the 5 I MI)J \tp 28.t.ll 2025 ,' respondents have not proven that the usagc of said :.;tationarl has resulted in anv loss to the GovemDlent and in any pc, uniltr) qain to the petitiorr,--r. Therc.lore. thc allcgcd rnistake corr:rlitled hv the petitioner is not grave enough lirr taking the c'r.trerne stcp of cance[[ing thc fl'anchisec itsell-. ln view thereof-. this ('our1 d('erns it tit and proper to set asidc the irlpugned proceedines. Accordirrgly, the impugncrl ploceedings No.A-.1i28 I I /ESD/( RR/C'ornplaints/2024) dated 02.09.101-5 issued by responclcnt No.l is hercl,r'set asrde and directs tl-rc respondents to reactivatc the petitiorrcr's MceSeva Franchisee C,:nter 'l'S-Y04 [ tbrthrvith.

7. Witlr the above directions. this Writ Pctition is allowed. There shall b,: no orcler as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous applications. if an1,, pendinr:. in this Writ Petitloq. shal stand closed. //TRUE COPY' SD/.B.REKHA RANI SI;ISTANT REGISTRAR / SECTION OFFICER To

2. 1)

4. The Principal Secretary, Department of lnformat State Secreta riat, State of Telangana at Hyderaba d The Directcr. Electronic Services Delivery (ESD), lV Telang ana, lvl.C.H., Building, Road No 7, Banjarahil The Distri ct Collector, Ranga Reddy Dist., Office at lbrahimpatnan, Ranga Reddy Dist. TG. The Tahasild ar, Balapur Mandal Revenue Office, Balaour, Ranga Reddy Dist.. TG. Te rhnology, Telangana ,Ial ee S;eva, Government of ls, Hyderabad, T S-34. Kongarakalan, .: r.:.. .:.:j/ [}

5. The e-District Manger, Ranga Reddy Dist., Office at Kongarakalan, lbrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy Dist., TG.

6. Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 7, Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at I Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies SA/BSK ('.C. TOI)r\Y t'-1 '.\,; c t [ \l0\ ?s6 * Ar (.: t'; HIGH COURT DATED:31 l'1|,12025 I T ORDER WP.No.28243 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. \] \\