WP/30713/2024 of C IMAN Vs THE STATE OF AP on 31 December 2024

ORDER:-

1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following[relief;]

“...To issue aWrit,Order or direction more particularlyone in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring theorderpassed by the 3''^ Respondent in his 01/72/122(01)[/2021-RM](T)/DPTO, dated 05.12.2024 terminating the allotment[order]dated 18.02.2021 and also forfeiting security deposit[without]consideration of the petitioner’s oral representation[and][ also]

advocate notice dated 06.12.2024 by anti-dating the impugnedorder as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, high handed, punitive[and][ the]sameis colorable exercise of power,vindictive and[also]InviolationofprinciplesofNaturalJusticeInawayandconsequently set aside order passed by theRespondent[in]his Cl/T2/122(01)/2021-RM(T)/DPTO, dated 05.12.2024withfurther direction to the Respondents to allow the petitioner[to]run the stall bearing No. OS. 01 in the 5^^ Respondent[depot][ as]per the allotment order dated 18.02.2021 and pass any[such]other order or orders... ”

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

ThepetitionerhereinisalesseeinrespectofStallbearingNo.OS-01 at Chittoor Bus Stand Depot No.1 for a period of five years i.e. from19.02.2021to 18.02.2026 with a monthly license fee[of][ Rs.9,201/-]for theperiod of three years and in 4^*^ year, the license[fee][ to][ be increased][ at]therate of 10% over the 3'^ year license fee and inyear[at][ the][ rate][ of][ 15%]increaseoverthe4thyearlicensefee.Thepetitioneralsoenteredanagreement with the Respondent Corporation on 18.02.2021.

3. As per the terms of the tender condition as well as[the][ terms]of theagreement, the petitioner has to carry out the business[of][ Veg & Non-Veg]Canteen in respect of Stall No.OS-01.But, the reasons[best][ known]to thepetitioner, the petitioner changed the nature of the[business][ which][ is][ contrary]to the terms of the agreement and also to the terms[of][ the][ tender][ notice][ and]he has been carrying the business by sub-letting the[stall][ to][ two][ other][ persons]to run stickering shop and mechanical shop in addition[to][ the][ allotted][ business]duly portioning the stall into three stalls.The said[contravention][ was][ admitted]by the petitioner and the notices were issued to the[petitioner][ by][ Respondent]agreement, the petitioner has to carry out the business[of][ Veg & Non-Veg]Canteen in respect of Stall No.OS-01.But, the reasons[best][ known]to thepetitioner, the petitioner changed the nature of the[business][ which][ is][ contrary]to the terms of the agreement and also to the terms[of][ the][ tender][ notice][ and]he has been carrying the business by sub-letting the[stall][ to][ two][ other][ persons]to run stickering shop and mechanical shop in addition[to][ the][ allotted][ business]duly portioning the stall into three stalls.The said[contravention][ was][ admitted]by the petitioner and the notices were issued to the[petitioner][ by][ Respondent]

\

No.5on09.12.2021and06.08.2022,forwhichthepetitionerpaidthepenalty/fine along with license fee in respect of deviations[as][ demanded][ and]has been running the business for all these years.Whereas, the petitioner iscontinuing the same business which is contrary to the[terms][ and][ conditions][ of]the agreement dated 18.02.2021, even though Clause No.9 of the agreementprovides the procedurefor changeof nature of business[and]evenaftercautioningtime and again by the Respondents not to allow third parties assub tenants and restore the original business.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner paid thepenaltyamountasdemandedbytheRespondentsforconductingthebusiness other than the terms of the agreement as well[as][ terms][ of][ the][ tender]notice.Finally, the show cause Notice dated 15.11.2024[was][ issued][ to][ the]petitionerbytheRespondentsunderClause20ofthe AgreementforTermination of Licence and called for an explanation within seven days.penaltyamountasdemandedbytheRespondentsforconductingthebusiness other than the terms of the agreement as well[as][ terms][ of][ the][ tender]notice.Finally, the show cause Notice dated 15.11.2024[was][ issued][ to][ the]petitionerbytheRespondentsunderClause20ofthe AgreementforTermination of Licence and called for an explanation within seven days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even though theshow cause notice was dated15.11.2024, the same was received by thepetitioner on02.12.2024.Uponreceipt of the saidnotice,thepetitionersubmitted his explanation within the prescribed timei.e. on 06.12.2024.Hefurther submits that the noticeitself contains seven days for submission ofexplanation and the petitioner herein submitted his explanation within sevendays after receipt of the notice.show cause notice was dated15.11.2024, the same was received by thepetitioner on02.12.2024.Uponreceipt of the saidnotice,thepetitionersubmitted his explanation within the prescribed timei.e. on 06.12.2024.Hefurther submits that the noticeitself contains seven days for submission ofexplanation and the petitioner herein submitted his explanation within sevendays after receipt of the notice.

6. Without considering the explanation of the petitioner and opportunity ofhearing, Respondent No.3issued the proceedings dated05.12.2024andterminating the licence of the petitioner whichis contrary to the principles ofnatural justice and the principle of a fair play and reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.12.2024isliable tobesetaside.hearing, Respondent No.3issued the proceedings dated05.12.2024andterminating the licence of the petitioner whichis contrary to the principles ofnatural justice and the principle of a fair play and reasonable opportunity to thepetitioner. Hence, the impugned order dated 05.12.2024isliable tobesetaside.

7. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondentssubmits that the petitioner violated Clause 9 and Clause[15][ of][ the][ terms][ of]agreement dated18.02.2021.Thepetitioner was also imposedwiththepenalty as per Clause 19 of the agreement and he paid the said penaltywithout there being any protest. The Respondent Authorities are imposing thepenalty against the petitioner for conducting the business contrary to the termsof the agreement. But, the petitioner has been continuing[the][ said][ violation]and running the business contrary to the terms of the agreement.Having noother option, the Respondents issued a show cause notice dated 15.11.2024and the same was served to the petitioner.But, the petitioner delayedinsubmitting the explanation.In the meanwhile, the Respondents[issued][ the]impugned proceedings on 05.12.2024 and the petitioner was provided anopportunity of hearing for submission of his explanation. But, the petitionerdidnot avail the benefit and did not submit his explanation[within][ a][ reasonable]time as contemplated under the notice.submits that the petitioner violated Clause 9 and Clause[15][ of][ the][ terms][ of]agreement dated18.02.2021.Thepetitioner was also imposedwiththepenalty as per Clause 19 of the agreement and he paid the said penaltywithout there being any protest. The Respondent Authorities are imposing thepenalty against the petitioner for conducting the business contrary to the termsof the agreement. But, the petitioner has been continuing[the][ said][ violation]and running the business contrary to the terms of the agreement.Having noother option, the Respondents issued a show cause notice dated 15.11.2024and the same was served to the petitioner.But, the petitioner delayedinsubmitting the explanation.In the meanwhile, the Respondents[issued][ the]impugned proceedings on 05.12.2024 and the petitioner was provided anopportunity of hearing for submission of his explanation. But, the petitionerdidnot avail the benefit and did not submit his explanation[within][ a][ reasonable]time as contemplated under the notice.

8. Heard Earned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counselfor the Respondents and also perused the material placed[on][ record.]for the Respondents and also perused the material placed[on][ record.]

9.

9. The fact remains that the petitioner has been violated the terms of theagreement aswellas the termsof the tender noticeincarrying outhisbusiness at Shop No.1.agreement aswellas the termsof the tender noticeincarrying outhisbusiness at Shop No.1.

10. It seems that the petitioner also violated the terms of the conditions ofClause 15 of the Agreement and the said premise was dividedinto threeportions and further sub-letting two portions to the other persons.

11. On perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner,it is observedthat the petitioner has been carrying with the other business by changing thenature of business / using premises, for which it is not allotted.

12. Thecontentionof thelearnedcounselforthepetitionerthattheexplanation which was submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show causenotice dated15.11.2024 wasnot consideredby the Respondentswhileissuingthe impugnednotice dated05.12.2024,whichiscontrarytotheprinciplesofnaturaljusticeandtheprincipleofafairandreasonableopportunity to the petitioner is to be considered and valid for the reason, theshow cause notice dated 15.11.2024 issued by the Respondents[was][ served]upon the petitioner after one week even contrary to the assertions of noticemade by the Respondents.

13. It is further observed that the show cause notice specifically[indicates]that the petitioner has to submit his explanation within seven days from thedate of noticer“The notice itself is served after seven days.Therefore, the terms of the notice were not adhered by the Respondentsitselfinstrictmanner.

14. Treating the notice asif served to the petitioner on 02.12.2024, thepetitioner submittedhis explanationwithin four daysi.e.on06.12.2024.Therefore,it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Respondents thathaving invited the explanation of the petitioner and without considering theexplanation of the petitioner, the Respondents cannot be proceed furtherwhichiscontrary to the terms of the notice while issuing the impugnedproceedings.Hence, the impugned proceedings dated05.12.2024lackssettled observations and Principles of Administrative Law jurisprudence and isliable to be set aside.petitioner submittedhis explanationwithin four daysi.e.on06.12.2024.Therefore,it is the statutory obligation on the part of the Respondents thathaving invited the explanation of the petitioner and without considering theexplanation of the petitioner, the Respondents cannot be proceed furtherwhichiscontrary to the terms of the notice while issuing the impugnedproceedings.Hence, the impugned proceedings dated05.12.2024lackssettled observations and Principles of Administrative Law jurisprudence and isliable to be set aside.

15. In view of the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of withthe following directions:the following directions:

i.The order passed by Respondent No.3 vide proceedingsNo.C1/T2/122(01)/2021-RM(T)/DPTO, dated 05.12.2024 is hereby setaside.

ii.However,RespondentNo.3isdirectedtoconsidertheexplanation submitted by the petitioner dated 06.12.2024 pursuant tothe show cause notice dated 15.11.2024 and pass appropriate[orders]within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder.

In the meanwhile, the Respondents are directed to allow[the]petitioner to carry out his business, till the final orders to be passed bytheRespondents.Afterthecommunicationoffinalorders,theRespondents are at liberty to take over possession of the subject shopof the petitioner in accordance with law and the Respondents[shall]follow the due procedure as contemplated under the[law.]

IV.There shall be no order as to costs.

16. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pendingif any, shall standclosed.closed.

Sd/- A.VIJAYA BABUASSISTANT REGISTRAR//TRUE COPY//irP.SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Transport, Roads and Buildings (PublicTransport) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,[Guntur]DistrictTransport) Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,[Guntur]District

2. The Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Vijayawada, NTR District.Corporation, Vijayawada, NTR District.

3.. The District Public Transport Officer, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Chittoor, Chittoor District.

4. The Regional Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation Chittoor, Chittoor DistrictCorporation Chittoor, Chittoor District

5. The Depot Manager, Depot -1 Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation Chittoor, Chittoor DistrictCorporation Chittoor, Chittoor District

6. One CC to Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

7. One CC to Sri A. Rama Rao, SC for APSRTC[OPUC]

8. Two CCs to GP for Transport, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT]9.Three CD Copies.9.Three CD Copies.

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDERWP.No.30713of2024

ANO^eO0 7 JAN 20751Co^ Current Section ^•4*

DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS