K. Padmaia vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposed of the writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2025 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The Court also directed that the same be communicated to the petitioner. No costs were awarded. The operative direction is to consider the representation and pass orders. The issue of GST collection and license fee reduction was not decided on merits but was to be considered by the respondent.
Facts
The petitioner, K. Padmaia, filed a writ petition before the Telangana High Court challenging the inaction of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway, Bengaluru (Respondent No. 2). The petitioner had submitted a representation on 14.10.2025 seeking a direction not to take coercive steps for the non-payment of the full license fee for the next quarter, pending consideration of her representation. The representation also sought a reduction in license fee and non-collection of GST. The petitioner argued that the inaction was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The petition also sought an interim direction to prevent coercive steps. The respondents were represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether the inaction of Respondent No. 2 in considering the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2025 is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India? (Question of law and fact). The petitioner argued that the inaction of the respondent in not considering her representation, which sought a reduction in license fee and non-collection of GST, was unjust, arbitrary, and violative of her fundamental rights. She sought a direction for the respondent to consider her representation and refrain from taking coercive steps. The respondents, through the Deputy Solicitor General, submitted that if the representation was pending, Respondent No. 2 may be directed to consider it and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
rft [ 3300 I DERABAD HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: 33477 OF 2025 Between: K. Padmaia, W/o K. Jaya Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o H.No.30- 641 l4l1A, Chandragiri Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, I\,4inistry of lndian Railways, New Delhi- Senior Divisional Commercial lvlanager, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Bengaluru. 2 I ...RESPONDENTS 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 a Writ, Order or Direction more parttcularly one in nature of Writ of Manbamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated I 14.10.2025 of the petitioner made to the 2nd respondent and pass the I appropiiate orders in accordance with law, and directing the 2nd respondent not to takei coercive steps against the petitioner for non-payment of full amount of lice
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.