K. Padmaja vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the termination order dated 14.11.2025 and the consequential tender notification dated Nil were issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and non-compliance with the court's order dated 06.11.2025. The Court found that the respondents were not justified in treating the petitioner as a defaulter for non-payment of full licence fee without first finalizing the refundable amount and effecting adjustment, especially when her refund representation was under active consideration pursuant to a judicial direction. The automated system's contention was rejected as it could not override a specific judicial order. The Court also held that termination involving civil consequences, without a specific show cause notice and an opportunity of explanation during the pendency of the refund consideration, amounted to a violation of natural justice. The objection regarding territorial jurisdiction was not accepted, considering the petitioner's plea that the agreement was executed at Hyderabad and in view of previous proceedings where this court entertained similar petitions. The Court reasoned that since the termination order was unsustainable, the consequential tender notification could not survive. The ratio decidendi is that administrative actions involving civil consequences must adhere to principles of natural justice and comply with judicial directives, even if automated systems are involved, and territorial jurisdiction can be established based on the place of agreement execution and prior judicial precedent.

Facts

The petitioner, K. Padmaja, challenged an order dated 14.11.2025 by the 2nd respondent terminating her licence to operate pay and use toilets at KSR Bengaluru City Railway Station and a subsequent tender notification. The petitioner contended that the termination occurred without a show cause notice and in violation of a previous court order dated 06.11.2025 in W.P.No.33477 of 2025. Disputes had arisen regarding excess licence fee collection, with the petitioner claiming a refund. The previous writ petition directed the 2nd respondent to consider her refund representation. The petitioner argued that the termination was premature, as her refund claim was still under consideration and a substantial amount was due to her, preventing any default on her part. She also asserted that the agreement was executed in Hyderabad, conferring territorial jurisdiction on this High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the termination order dated 14.11.2025 and the consequential tender notification dated Nil are illegal and unsustainable for violating the principles of natural justice and the court's previous order dated 06.11.2025 in W.P.No.33477 of 2025. 2. Whether this High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the termination order was passed without issuing a show cause notice, violating Clause 13.2 of the Standard Conditions of Contract and the principles of natural justice. She contended that the termination was arbitrary, especially since her refund representation was under active consideration pursuant to a judicial direction. She further argued that the tender notification was a direct consequence of the illegal termination and thus invalid. Regarding jurisdiction, she claimed the agreement was executed in Hyderabad, where she resides, and cited previous judgments where this court entertained similar petitions on grounds of cause of action arising within its territory. Respondents' arguments: The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding territorial jurisdiction, stating that no part of the cause of action arose within the court's jurisdiction, as the 2nd respondent is in Bengaluru, Karnataka. They argued that the petitioner's residence in Hyderabad does not confer jurisdiction and relied on a previous order dismissing a similar petition filed by the petitioner. They also contended that the contract is governed by standard conditions and e-auction policy, and that the petitioner was inconsistent in her refund claims. They asserted that GST liability lies with the licensee and that automated system alerts constituted sufficient notice.