N.Mithun Rao vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, N. Mithun Rao, a licensee of a fast food and snacks stall at the Jadcherla Bus Station, filed a writ petition challenging the termination of his license by the Deputy Regional Manager of Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) on April 29, 2026. The termination was based on the petitioner's default in paying license fees from October 2025 to February 2026, amounting to Rs. 16,14,669/-. The petitioner contended that his inability to pay was due to rampant violations by other stallholders selling unauthorized items and the non-halting of buses at designated platforms, causing severe business loss. He had previously submitted representations regarding these issues. The respondents argued that the petitioner's business was not directly impacted by other stalls and that they had adjusted the security deposit against the dues, leaving a balance of Rs. 70,360/-. They claimed to have followed the procedure by issuing a show-cause notice on March 7, 2026, to which the petitioner responded on March 20, 2026.
Held
The Court held that the termination of the license deed with immediate effect on April 28, 2026, was illegal and arbitrary. While the respondents issued a show-cause notice on March 7, 2026, and received the petitioner's explanation on March 20, 2026, the termination order itself was issued with immediate effect. Clause 27(a) of the License Deed clearly stipulates that a license is liable for termination with one month's advance notice. The Court found that the respondents did not provide this mandatory one-month advance notice before terminating the deed. The show-cause notice primarily called upon the petitioner to pay arrears, with a proposal to forfeit the security deposit, and did not explicitly state that the license deed would be cancelled. Therefore, the Court set aside the termination of the deed of license notice dated April 28, 2026. The operative direction was for the respondents to follow the procedure contemplated under Clause 27(a) of the License Deed, which includes providing one month's advance notice before effecting termination. The Court did not delve into the factual dispute regarding the unauthorized sales by other stallholders or the bus stopping locations, stating it could not conduct a fact-finding exercise on these matters.
Key Issues
1. Whether the termination of the license deed by the 3rd respondent on April 29, 2026, was arbitrary, unjust, and violative of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the termination of the license deed was contrary to Clause 27(a) of the License Deed, which requires one month's advance notice, as argued by the petitioner? Petitioner's Arguments: The respondents committed a breach of the license deed by failing to take action against surrounding stallholders selling unauthorized items, which caused loss to the petitioner's business. Additionally, buses were not stopping at designated platforms, impacting the petitioner's sales. The termination order was issued with immediate effect, violating Clause 27(a) of the license deed requiring one month's advance notice. The petitioner relied on Clause 27(a) of the License Deed and Circular No. 31/2017 dated 02.11.2017. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that there was no direct link between the sale of unauthorized items in surrounding stalls and the petitioner's inability to pay the license fee. They asserted that they followed the procedure by issuing a show-cause notice on March 7, 2026, receiving an explanation on March 20, 2026, and then issuing the termination order on April 28, 2026. They argued that the procedure was followed as per the deed of license and sought dismissal of the writ petition.
Sections Cited
Clause 27(a), Clause 14(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
The Court made the following: ORDER
n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA WRIT PETITION No. 15696 of2026 THE O6TH DAY OF MAY, 2026 Between: N. Mithun Rao. . ..Petitioner AND Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and 2 others' . . . Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for respondents-TGRTC' Perused the entire record. 2 The writ petition is filed with the following prayer: "...to issue a Writ, Order or Direction morc particularly one in nature oi W.i, of Mundamus, declaring the action of the 3'd respondent vide his order dated 29.04.2026, terminating the license of the petitioner in respect of his Stall No. 14 in Jadcherla Bus Station is highly unwarranted, unjust, malahde, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Clause No.27 (a) of the License Deed and contrary to the Circular ol the Corporation No.3 l/2017 dated 02.11.2017 and violative of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, is illegal and unsustainable, and pass such other order or orders. . . "
The petitioner is a licensee of fast food and snacks stall No'14 open space (10X10) at TGSRTC Bus Station at Jedcherla. The said allotment was made pursuant to compromise recorded before the Lok Adalat on 28.09.2024 in W.P.No.32934 ol 20 18. As per said compromise, the wP 1s696 2026 TGSRTC could not provide kitchen-related facilities such as commercial LPG bunk, RO water connection, inlet-outlet, and drainage arrangements. The petitioner waived his right to such facilities and agreed to operate the stall on the terms enumerated in the compromise.. As per said compromise, the petitioner is paying license f-ee of Rs.2,75,000/- per month exclusive of GST i.e. Rs.3,24,500/- inclusive ol GST which translates into Rs.3,245l_ per square leet per month. Such license fee is the highest among all TGSRTC licenses. T he petitioner submitted representations dated I I .07 .2025, 25.07 .2025, I 3.08.2025, 25.08.2025 and I 6.09.2025 through email r'ith proolas to rampant violation of conditions by other stall holders and corrtinued non-enforcement by TGSRTC. However, the respondents have not taken any substantive action against the remaining stall holders for breach of [icense. [n the circumstances, the petitioner fired writ petitions to direct thc respondents to consider his case for revision of monthly rent/license fee and other reliefs.
During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the respondents issued termination of deed of license dated, 29.04 .2026 referring to default in payment of license r'ee by the petitioner for the months from october, 2025 to February, 2026 Rs.16,14,669/_ excluding electricity and other charges on account ol'consecutive non-payment of ricense ree for more 2 :-;
wP 15696 2026 than three months, responde,t no.2 has issued show-cause notice dated 07.03.2026 for termination of deed of license calling lor explanation. The petitioner was informed to pay all the due amounts within one week. The petitioner submitted explanation vzde communication dated ZO.O3 .2026 requiring the respondents to arrange to stop the sale of unauthorized items by surrounding stall owners and take necessary steps to stop the buses on the designated platfonns. Tlrc respondenfs have initiated necessary action and imposed penalties on all the unauthorized businesses.
According to respondents, no stall is setling items permitted to be sold by the petitioner and therefore, there is no direct link between the sale of unauthorized iterns in sunounding stalls and inability of petitioner to pay the monthly license fee. In that context, the respondents have adjusted the security deposit of Rs.23,01,198/- as against dues of Rs.23,71,55g/-. The petitioner was informed about the outstanding license fee of Rs.23,7 I ,5584 and its adjustment towards dues. Even after adjustment the petitioner was found due to pay balance of Rs.70,360/-. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to pay balance amount and the security deposit amount immediately. In spite of communicating the same through letter dated 17.04.2026 the petitioner did not pay the amount as demanded by the respondents and the same was found to be in violation of the terms and wP 15696 2026 conditions of agreement clause No. 27 (a) and l4 (c) of the deed of license. It is the case of the respondents that show-cause notice has been issued, but the amounts are not cleared and therefore, the deed of license issued in lavour ol the petitioner rvas terminated, vide termination of deed of license circular dated 28.04.2026 with immediate effect.
The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondents have committed breach of deed of license by not taking any action against the surrounding stall licensees who were selling unauthorized items causing loss to the petitioner's business. Further, it is submitted that the buses were not stopping at the designated bus stop, but were going to a certain distance and stopping at a place such that the passengers could not visit the petitioner's fast lood and snacks stall and therefore, there was severe loss to the business which is the reason for non-payment of license fee. On account of these facts, the petitioner has submitted representations for revising the license fee, whereas the respondents without taking any action subsequent to his representations and without discussing his grievance have issued the termination of deed of license dated 28.04.2026. Further, as per deed of license, as per Clause No.27 (a), a license is liable for termination with one monrh advance notice on the grounds stated therein, which includes default in payment of license fee for three months consecutively or 4
I \)tP 15696 2026 three tinres in a carendar year. The learned counser for petitioner submits that the respondents have issued terrr^ination of deed of license rvith irnnrediate effect o^ 28.04.2026 rvithout giving one rno.th notice of termination.
The lcamed Standing Counsei for rcspondents havc produced copy of termination of deed of license catetr 2g.04.2026 which was subsequent ro hiir:g of the ,,vrit petitio,r i, the r;to,th of Ncvernber, 2025. .lhe respondent also produced a copy of the letter addressed by Station Manager, Jedcherla Bus Stand, irrforming about non-payment or rice;rse. shorv-cause notice was served on thc pctitioner on 07.03.2026 to submit an explanation within seven days. The petitioner herein subnritted explanation dated 2003.2026. The petitioner had expressed hardship in running the stall on account of unauthorized sale of food items by the remaining stal holders, non-halting of the buses at their designated platforms and ail the buses being parked unauth orizedry before the canteen for the benefit of canteen license holder. The petitioner claimed financial rosses and unabre to pay the license fee. The petitioner offered to pay monthry license fee of Rs 1,00,000/- in case the same is revised for the months from october to December, 2025. The petitioner's case was unauthorized sale of food items by the remaining stall holders and therefore, loss in business resulted in the 5 I i
_T I wP 15696 2026 inability to pay the license fee. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that thc respondents ha'c followed procedure as per deed of license and the show-cause notice was issued on o7 .04.2026 and after receipt of explanation on 20.03 .2026, the termination of deed of license was issued on 28.04.2026. Therefore, there is no irregularity whatsoever and hence, sought dismissal of the writ petition. 8. '[-he record shows that thc petitioner entered into a deed of license dated 29.01 .2025 lor running a last food and snacks stall for a period of5 years. Thereafler, there is defaurt in payment of the license fee by the petitioner from the month october, 2025 onwards till date. Since there was default in payment of license fee, show-cause notice is issued by the respondents- 9. whereas it is the case of petirioner that from the month of lury,2025 onwards there is unaurhorized sarc of food items by sunounding stal owners, the buses not stopping at the designated bus stops, but stopping in front ol the canteen in order to provide business to the canteen to the detriment of the interests of the petitioner. According to petitioner, his grievance was no[ addressed by the respondents. While so, the respondents wP 15696 2026 have issued show-cause notice and also issued termination of deed of license.
This Court cannot ventue to give a fact finding about whether there was sale of unauthorized food items by the surrounding stall owners of the writ petitioner and whether such unauthorized sale was the causc for inability of petitioner to do sufficient business to pay the license fee. Further, no fact finding can be given by this Court about the vatidity in the grievance of the buses not being stopped at the designated bus stops, but stopping in front of the canteen to enhance the business interest of the canteen owner. I l. A bare perusal of the deed of license shows that the said license is liable for termination with one month advance notice. In that context, according to the respondents the show-cause notice dated 20.03.2026 is the time for calculation of one month. 'Ihe petitioner was given seven days time to submit an explanation. The petitioner submitted explanation dated 20.03.2026. Upon receipt of said explanation, the termination of deed of license dated 28.04.2026 has been issued by the petitioner. The respondents' show-cause notice did not contain anything about the cancellation of deed of license. The show-cause notice dated 07.03.2026 I I 7 I wP t5696 2026 called upon the petitioner ro pay the arrears of license fee, failing which the security deposit was proposed to be forfeited. Then, the petitioner submitted explanation dated 20.03.2026. The respondents ought to have given one monlh time for termination of deed of license as per Clause 27 (a). Instead, the respondenrs have terminated the deed of license with immediate effect on 28.04.2026 and the same is illegal and arbitrary Thereforc, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's case and to give one month advance notice, before elfccting tcrmination of deed of license. The termination of deed of license with immediatc eflcct from 28.04.2026 is unsustainable. 12. ln the result, the r.r,rit petition is disposed of by setting aside the termination of deed of licensc notice dated 28.04.2026 with a direction to the respondents to lollow the procedure contemplated under Clause 27 (a) of the Liccnse Deed dated 29.01.2025 for terminating thc same. There shall be no order as to cosrs. Miscellaneor.rs applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR //// € SECTION OFFICER
The Chairman and Managing Director, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Bus Bhavan Musheerabad, Hyderabad
The Regional Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation' Mahabubnagar Region, Mahabubnagar
The Deputy Regional Manager (O), Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, Mahabubnagar Region, [ylahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District To,
PMK BS
One CC to SRI C RAMACHANDRA RAJU, Advocate IOPUCI 5 One CC to SRI R ANURAG, SC FOR TGSRTC tOpUCl
Two CD Copies @
I I HIGH COURT DATED: 06/05/2026 CC TODAY 1R THts S 0I t![Y 2il2i I I t,..8 (t ORDER WP.No.15696 of 2026 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS lit: I .):) .,",, i:..* .:', 1 ? ( 1.1"
Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.