Sri. V. Veera Narayana And Another vs. The State Of Telangana And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioners, Sri V. Veera Narayana and Sri B. Krishnamurthy, filed a writ petition challenging show cause notices dated 24.07.2021 issued by the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (TSRTC) and its Regional Manager. These notices proposed termination of their shop licenses for non-payment of license fees for October and November 2019, and April to July 2021. The notices also demanded penal interest at 36% per annum, GST, maintenance, electricity, and water charges. The petitioners argued that these demands were illegal and arbitrary, especially considering the lockdown restrictions imposed by the State of Telangana. They sought a direction to waive these charges. Subsequently, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the entire license fee, including for the lockdown period, had been paid.

Held

The Court noted the statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire license fee, including for the lockdown period, had been paid. Consequently, the Court found that nothing further remained for adjudication in the writ petition. The Court recorded this statement and closed the writ petition. No specific findings were made on the legality or arbitrariness of the show cause notices or the demands made therein, as the issue became infructuous due to the payment of the disputed amounts. The ratio decidendi is that once the disputed amounts are paid, the writ petition challenging the demand becomes infructuous and is liable to be closed. The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the petitioners' original contentions regarding the lockdown period. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by the subsequent payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for license fee, penal interest, GST, maintenance, electricity, and water charges for the period of lockdown, without considering the restrictions imposed by the State of Telangana, is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India and the Disaster Management Act? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the interpretation of the impact of lockdown restrictions on contractual obligations and the validity of demands made during such periods). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the demands were atrocious, unwarranted, unjust, arbitrary, irrational, and illegal. They argued that the lockdown restrictions significantly impacted their ability to operate and generate revenue, making the demands unreasonable and violative of constitutional rights and the Disaster Management Act. They sought a waiver of all disputed charges. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Telangana and TSRTC) in response to the petitioners' claims. The counsel for respondent No. 1 is listed as GP FOR TRANSPORT, and for respondents No. 2 and 3 as SC FOR TSRTC.