S. Jeevan Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to deposit the demanded amounts in three installments within a period of three months from the date of the order. The first installment was to be paid on or before January 15, 2026, the second on or before February 15, 2026, and the third on or before March 15, 2026, as per the notice issued by Respondent No. 2. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to adhere to this undertaking, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to take appropriate steps to evict the petitioner or cancel his license. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to allot the shop to the petitioner after the payment of the first installment. No order as to costs was made. The issue of whether the initial seizure and demand were illegal or arbitrary was not explicitly decided, as the parties reached a settlement regarding the payment schedule.

Facts

The petitioner, S. Jeevan Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated May 30, 2024, issued by the Executive Officer of Sri Sri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Respondent No. 2). The notice demanded the petitioner deposit Rs. 53,27,407/- along with GST for the license period of selling Deeparadhana in the temple premises, after allegedly seizing the premises without prior notice or opportunity to be heard. The petitioner sought a declaration that this action was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice and constitutional rights. He also sought interim relief to suspend the notice and be allowed to continue selling diyas, with compensation for the period lost due to the alleged illegal action.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 2 in issuing a notice demanding a sum of Rs. 53,27,407/- along with GST for the license period, after allegedly seizing the premises without notice or opportunity to be heard, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and constitutional rights (Articles 14, 19, and 21)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the seizure of premises and the subsequent demand for payment were done without any prior notice or opportunity to present his case, thus violating fundamental principles of natural justice and his constitutional rights. He argued that the action was arbitrary and illegal. Respondents' arguments: The Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 produced a notice dated December 15, 2023 (note: the judgment text contains a typo, stating 2025, but context suggests 2023 or an earlier date corresponding to the demand), demanding payment of installments totaling Rs. 53,27,407/- including GST. The counsel stated that upon payment, the petitioner's license would be restored and a shop allotted. The Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2 had no objection to granting the petitioner three months to pay the amount in installments.