Lingala Satish vs. The State Of Telangana

Facts

The petitioner, Lingala Satish, obtained the authorized central parking facility at Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Vari Devasthanam Temple, Yadagirigutta, through an open auction. The Executive Officer of the temple (3rd respondent) issued a notice on February 21, 2023, cancelling the petitioner's license. The cancellation was based on the petitioner's failure to pay an amount of Rs. 1,18,78,666/- along with GST, which was due under the license. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this notice and the stoppage of parking, arguing it was done without affording an opportunity to submit an explanation and without considering his representation. The petitioner also sought interim relief to revive the parking facility.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the impugned notice was issued for the cancellation of the license due to the petitioner's failure to pay Rs. 1,18,78,666/- along with GST. The Court noted that the petitioner was put on notice about the default and a demand was made. However, when the matter was heard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was ready and willing to pay the entire due amount. In view of this statement and to safeguard the interests of both parties, the Court decided to grant indulgence. The Writ Petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to restore the license in favor of the petitioner, subject to the petitioner paying the entire due amount of Rs. 1,18,78,666/- as shown in the impugned notice. No order as to costs was made.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's license for the authorized central parking facility by the 3rd respondent, without providing an opportunity for explanation, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent acted illegally and arbitrarily by cancelling the license and stopping the parking facility without giving him a chance to explain his position. He argued that this action violated his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. Revenue/State's arguments: The respondents argued that the impugned notice was issued because the petitioner failed to pay the due amount of Rs. 1,18,78,666/- with GST. The notice itself indicated that a demand had already been made for this amount, and the cancellation was a consequence of non-payment. The respondents relied on the terms of the license and the demand made for the outstanding dues.