G.Venkat vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, G. Venkat, was granted a license to operate a popcorn stall (Stall No. 2) at the Jangaon Bus Stand by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) for a period from August 10, 2024, to August 9, 2029. The monthly fee was Rs. 1,05,006, excluding electricity, water, GST, and maintenance. The petitioner alleges harassment by Respondent No. 4 and others, who allegedly attempted to force him to relinquish his license. He filed police complaints regarding this. Despite the petitioner's response to a notice dated June 24, 2025, from Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 2 issued a show-cause notice on August 10, 2024, proposing termination of the license. The petitioner contends his license is valid until August 9, 2029, and the termination attempts are unjustified. The respondents, however, state that the petitioner sub-let the stall, violating the license terms. They issued show-cause notices on June 24, 2025, and September 20, 2025, after finding the petitioner's replies unsatisfactory.

Held

The Court held that the issuance of show-cause notices by the respondents is a part of the proper legal process, affording the petitioner an opportunity to respond and present his case. It was noted that no final order had been passed by the competent authority. Therefore, the challenge to the show-cause notices at this stage was considered premature and not maintainable. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, which advises against entertaining writ petitions when show-cause notices have been issued and the statutory authority is empowered to adjudicate the issues. The Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the issuance of the notices. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. The Court also stated that there would be no order as to costs.

Key Issues

1. Whether the issuance of show-cause notices by the respondents for the termination of the petitioner's license agreement is arbitrary and illegal, violating Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, and whether the Court should intervene at this stage before a final order is passed? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argues that the show-cause notices are illegal and arbitrary, as they were issued without considering his replies and that his license is valid until 2029. He seeks a direction to consider his replies and quash the termination notice. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contend that the issuance of show-cause notices is a part of the due legal process, providing the petitioner an opportunity to explain his side. They argue that since no final order has been passed, the writ petition is premature and not maintainable. They rely on the Supreme Court judgment in Special Director and Another Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse and Another, which emphasizes that writ petitions should not be entertained when show-cause notices have been issued, and issues can be adjudicated by the authority in the first instance.