M.Sudhakar Rao vs. The Telangana State Road Transport Corporation And 2 Others

Held

The Court set aside the impugned termination of the contract agreement. The petitioner was directed to deposit half of the total outstanding dues of Rs. 6,71,769/- within four weeks from the date of the order, and the remaining half within six weeks thereafter. The official respondents were directed to immediately hand over possession of the stall to the petitioner to enable them to resume their business. Additionally, the petitioner was ordered to continue paying the monthly license fee along with other charges, including water, maintenance, electricity, and GST, as stipulated in the license agreement, within the prescribed time. The Court noted that if the petitioner failed to comply with these conditions, the respondents were free to take necessary action. The issue of license fees for April 2020 to September 2020 was acknowledged as pending a decision by the Corporation.

Facts

The petitioner, a stall owner at MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, challenged the termination of their contract agreement by the third respondent, the Senior Customer Relation Manager, TSRTC. The termination was based on alleged dues of license fees. The petitioner contended that they had paid dues for December 2019, January 2020, and February 2020, and that the Corporation was yet to decide on dues for April 2020 to September 2020. The petitioner admitted to outstanding dues for October 2019, November 2019, October 2020, November 2020, and part of December 2020, totaling Rs. 6,71,769/-. The writ petition was filed seeking to set aside the termination and to allow the petitioner to continue their business, and to prevent the respondents from considering tenders for the stall.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the third respondent in issuing the termination of contract agreement for stall No. 52 at MGBS, Gowliguda, Hyderabad, is arbitrary, illegal, and against the principles of natural justice, turning on the interpretation of the contract terms and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the petitioner's ability to pay dues. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the termination was arbitrary and illegal, violating principles of natural justice. They claimed to have paid dues for certain periods and that the Corporation had not yet decided on other periods. They also highlighted the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic situation as a factor affecting their business and payment capacity. Revenue/State's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents did not present specific arguments against the petitioner's claims regarding the dues or the termination. The judgment notes that the Corporation is yet to take a decision regarding license fees for April 2020 to September 2020.