K.Venkatesh vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation

Facts

The petitioner, K. Venkatesh, operating a popcorn stall (bearing No. 51) at MGBS, Hyderabad, filed a writ petition challenging the termination of his license by the 3rd respondent (Deputy Regional Manager, TSRTC) via an order dated 02.04.2025. The 2nd respondent (Executive Director, TSRTC) subsequently issued a revocation order dated 16.04.2025, which imposed a condition for the petitioner to pay alleged dues of license fee. The petitioner argued this condition was unwarranted and illegal. The present writ petition (W.P. No. 14601 of 2025) was filed seeking to declare the actions of the respondents as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner also sought interim relief to permit him to run his stall pending disposal of the writ petition. The matter was heard along with W.P. No. 13131 of 2025, which dealt with a similar issue of license termination and conditional revocation.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner himself admitted to selling unauthorized items and encroaching space in his representation. The Court found that the Circular dated 15.03.2022, which was also mentioned in the license agreement dated 28.12.2022, deals with violations of terms and conditions, not exclusively with defaults in license fee payment. Therefore, the Court found the petitioner's contention that the Circular was inapplicable to be unsustainable. The Court also noted that the conditions imposed in the revocation order could not be faulted as the revocation was at the petitioner's instance. However, to balance equities, the Court directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct his business subject to filing an undertaking to pay the outstanding dues of Rs. 2,83,322/- in six equal monthly installments, commencing from May 2025, payable by the 10th of each month. For the recovery of any remaining amount, the respondents were at liberty to follow due process of law. The impugned revocation order dated 23.04.2025 was confirmed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the condition imposed by the respondents for payment of alleged dues of license fee in the revocation order dated 16.04.2025 is illegal and arbitrary, violating the terms of the license and the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the revocation order, which was meant to rectify a previous termination, should have been absolute and without new conditions. He argued that the imposition of a condition to pay license fee for the period the stall was closed due to termination was unlawful. He further argued that the respondents failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Clause 28 of the License Deed for recovery of dues, which requires one month's prior notice. The petitioner also submitted that the termination was for selling unauthorized items, not for non-payment of license fee, and therefore, the Circular dated 15.03.2022, which deals with revocation for default in payment, should not be applicable. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had admitted to selling unauthorized items and had pleaded not to repeat the same. They contended that the condition imposed was in terms of the Corporation's Circular No. S/2022-OPD(M&C) dated 15.03.2022, which authorizes revocation with conditions including clearance of dues for the interregnum period. They also stated that the petitioner had dues of Rs. 19,99,665/- pending from November 2022.