P.Prasad vs. Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams

Held

The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish any legal right that was violated, and therefore, was not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The Court found that the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the license agreement, specifically regarding the payment of license fees. The extension of the license was discretionary, and the petitioner's conduct, characterized by delayed payments and alleged defaults, did not warrant the exercise of this discretion in his favor. The Court also noted that the property belonged to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), and its officials had a duty to protect the deity's interests. The Court affirmed the learned Single Judge's decision to dismiss the writ petitions, finding no illegality or perversity in the order. The Court also noted that during the pendency of the appeals, an affidavit was filed showing substantial arrears of license fee, including GST, which further disentitled the petitioner to relief. The Court concluded that the appeals were liable to be dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner was granted a license to run a canteen for one year from February 2, 2018. Due to the illness of his brother, the petitioner failed to pay license fees for August and September 2018. The respondent authorities issued a show cause notice, and subsequently, proceedings dated December 4, 2018, directing the closure of the canteen and cancellation of the remaining license period. The petitioner made several payments towards license fees and requested renewal. The respondent authorities rejected the renewal request on March 8, 2019, reiterating the cancellation order. The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging these actions, which were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The present appeals are filed against the common order of dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of mandamus for the continuation of his canteen license, despite alleged defaults in payment of license fees and violation of license conditions? - Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contends that the establishment of an Annaprasadam/Annadhanam centre by the respondents caused significant loss to his canteen business. He claims to have paid substantial amounts towards license fees, with no arrears outstanding at the time of filing the writ petition. He also argues that the respondents failed to consider his representation for renewal and that the cancellation of the license and refusal to extend it were erroneous. He asserts a right to renewal for another two years. - Revenue/State's argument: The respondents argue that the petitioner committed defaults in payment of license fees, violating specific clauses of the license agreement. They contend that the extension of the license is discretionary and depends on the petitioner's conduct, which they deem unsatisfactory. They also highlight that the petitioner has not demonstrated any violation of a legal right and that the property belongs to the TTD, whose interest must be protected. Furthermore, an affidavit filed during the appeals indicated significant arrears of license fee, including GST.