Sri.Annedi Srikanth Reddy vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Annedi Srikanth Reddy, was awarded a license to run a fast-food business in Stall No. 13 at Karimnagar Bus Station by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC). The license was for five years, with a monthly fee starting at Rs. 3,15,000, subject to annual increases. The Deed of License stipulated advance payment of the license fee by the 10th of each month. The petitioner made partial payments totaling Rs. 9,70,000 but failed to pay the full license fee dues for August to November 2023. Despite representations from the petitioner, including one dated December 27, 2023, citing ill health and promising to clear the balance by January 31, 2024, the Deputy Regional Manager (Respondent No. 6) issued a Final Order for Termination of the license on December 22, 2023. The petitioner challenged this termination order before the High Court.

Held

The High Court, with the consent of both parties, disposed of the Writ Petition at the admission stage. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had submitted a representation dated December 22, 2023 (though the petitioner's representation mentioned in the facts is dated December 27, 2023), undertaking to pay the balance amount by January 31, 2024. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to re-open Stall No. 13 and refrain from initiating any coercive steps against the petitioner. The petitioner was obligated to pay the balance amount towards license fee dues. The Court stipulated that in the event of default by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation would be at liberty to initiate action in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded. The issue of the exact amount due and the validity of the termination order itself, in light of the petitioner's arguments regarding natural justice, was not definitively decided, as the matter was resolved by directing the petitioner to clear dues and allowing the respondents to proceed if default occurred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of Respondent No. 6 in issuing the Final Order for Termination of the license for Stall No. 13 is illegal and arbitrary, violating the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the termination order was illegal and arbitrary, issued in violation of natural justice principles and constitutional rights. He argued that the respondents failed to consider his representations, particularly the one dated December 27, 2023, wherein he undertook to pay the balance license fee dues by January 31, 2024, and cited ill health as the reason for the delay. The petitioner sought a direction to re-open the stall and permit him to pay the outstanding license fee of Rs. 11,30,000 in six weeks. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the respondents. However, their actions, as described in the facts, indicate they proceeded with termination due to non-payment of license fees.