Golla Manmadha Rao vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Golla Manmadha Rao, was the highest bidder for the license to maintain Sri Rama Nilayam Choultry, a property of Sree Seetha Ramachandra Swamy Vari Devasthanam (temple). The petitioner paid a portion of the bid amount and obtained approval from the Commissioner of Endowments. However, the temple authorities issued a notice and a final show cause notice to the petitioner without conducting an inquiry or considering his request for time to submit an explanation. Subsequently, the Commissioner of Endowments cancelled the license. The petitioner challenged these actions, including the cancellation of his license and the seizure of the premises, arguing they were illegal and void. The dispute involves the maintenance of the choultry for a period of three years.

Held

The Court allowed the Writ Petition, setting aside the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments cancelling the petitioner's license. The Court found that the respondents took a drastic step of cancelling the license without sufficient justification. Specifically, the Court noted that the petitioner's request for time to submit an explanation to the final show cause notice was neither honored nor rejected. The cancellation order did not explain why this request could not be considered. The Court also observed that the respondents did not clearly establish the commercial activities conducted by the petitioner with the alleged fridge or the extent of his earnings from it. Furthermore, the Court inferred from the permission granted for repairs shortly after the license was issued that the rooms were likely not in a proper condition when the license was granted. The ratio decidendi is that arbitrary and unjustifiable cancellation of a license without following due process and considering the licensee's requests renders the action unsustainable. The Court directed the Commissioner of Endowments to instruct the temple to hand over possession of the choultry to the petitioner for continuing the license, subject to the petitioner removing the fridge, crediting EPF/ESI dues, and obtaining GST numbers. The temple was directed to supply a copy of the agreement to the petitioner within a week.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, cancelling the petitioner's license for the maintenance of Sri Rama Nilayam Choultry, are void and opposed to the Constitution of India, particularly Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300-A, and the provisions of the Telangana Endowments Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the notices and the cancellation of his license were issued without proper inquiry, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, and without considering his request for time to submit an explanation. He argued that the respondents failed to provide him with a copy of the license agreement, making the demand for GST and other payments premature. The petitioner also claimed to have incurred significant expenses for repairing the choultry rooms. Respondents' arguments: The respondents (Commissioner of Endowments and the temple) argued that the petitioner violated several tender conditions, including failing to execute the license agreement, not submitting staff particulars, not paying statutory dues like EPF and ESI, collecting higher rents from pilgrims, and using the premises commercially by installing a fridge. They also cited newspaper reports and a complaint regarding the petitioner's conduct.