Disposed

B. Diwakar Babu v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Jun 2021WP/11111/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged temple authorities' notice demanding balance license fee and threatening license cancellation after he paid only part of the bid amount and requested refund due to pandemic. Court disposed petition by directing authorities to reply to petitioner's explanation before taking coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's reply from 09.06.2021 and pass reasoned order; restrained from taking coercive steps for recovery.

B. Diwakar Babu Vs the State of Ap — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶2

Writ Petition No.11111 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed

¶5

seeking the following relief/s:

¶6

“..to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in issuing the notice in Rc.No.C1/104/2021 dated 19.5.2021 (received on 4.6.2021) demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/[Rupees ten lakhs only] and to submit the explanation, otherwise to cancel the license and rejecting the representation dated 25.04.2021 to refund the license fee amount of Rs.8,50,000/- after deducting the one month license fee of Rs.1,50,000/-, as bad, illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned notice dated 19.5.2021 (received on 4.6.2021) and direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs.8,50,000/- to the petitioner and pass such other order or orders..”

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Endowments appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent. With their consent the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage.

¶8

The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to auction notification for license-hold rights to sell the water bottles and cool drinks by storing them in a thermacoal box near chappal stand in the 3^rd respondent temple premises, for the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, he participated in the auction held on 16.02.2021 and became highest bidder for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- per month (Rs.18,00,000/- per annum) plus GST @ 18% i.e., Rs.3,24,000/- totalling to Rs.21,24,000/-. It was stated at the time of auction that auction would be subject to the approval of the 2^nd respondent – Commissioner. Thereafter, on 31.03.2021 he paid an amount of Rs.11,24,000/- [Rs.10,00,000/- towards

¶9

¶10

MGR,J WP_11111_2021

¶11

license fee and an amount of Rs.1,24,000/- towards GST for a period of six months) in advance vide MR.No.1151. It was agreed to pay the balance amount including GST amount after the approval orders are obtained from the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner had run the license from 01.04.2021 till 25.04.2021. Thereafter, in view of the spread of the second wave of Corona Virus and dangerous situation prevailing in the District, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.04.2021 to the 3^rd respondent requesting to cancel the license and refund the amount paid, after deducting one month license fee of Rs.1,50,000/.

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that the representation was kept pending and no orders are passed either accepting or rejecting the request of the petitioner. However, the 3^rd respondent issued the impugned notice, dated 19.05.2021, asking the petitioner to show cause, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, as to why the license should not be cancelled and if no explanation is submitted, it shall be deemed that the license has been cancelled. In the show cause notice, it is inter alia stated to the following effect: ‘..As per auction conditions, the petitioner has to deposit a total sum of Rs.21,24,000/- within 72 hours of confirming the auction. However, the petitioner had only deposited an amount of Rs.11,24,000/- within the said time stating that the balance amount of Rs.10,00,000/- would be paid in four or five days. But the petitioner had failed to do so till now. The petitioner submitted representation stating that due to prevalence of Corona pandemic, number of devotees coming to the Devasthanam has decreased and therefore he cannot continue license and requested to either continue the license after the number of devotees coming to the temple increases or to deduct the one month license fee from the amount deposited and refund the remaining amount. The request of the petitioner is completely rejected. The petitioner is required to pay the full license amount and GST @ 18%, within 72 hours of confirmation of bid i.e.,

¶13

¶14

MGR,J WP_11111_2021

¶15

on or before 19.02.2021. But the petitioner paid only an amount of Rs.11,24,000/- and failed to pay the remaining license amount. The petitioner has been continuing the license from 01.04.2021. Without paying the balance license amount, the petitioner is stating that he could not continue the license as due to the spread of Corona, the number of devotees coming to the temple decreased and would continue the license after increase in the number of devotees, contrary to auction condition No.8.’ Challenging the issuance of the impugned notice, the present writ petition came to be filed.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sale of water bottles and cool drinks would depend upon the inflow of the devotees visiting the temple. Due to fear of spread of Corona, very few devotees are visiting the temple and even the devotees visiting the temple are not purchasing water or cool drinks from outside. Therefore, there is no scope of petitioner running the license for sale of water bottles and cool drinks with the amount offered by the petitioner. During partial lockdown period from 06:00 AM to 12:00 noon, the temple has also imposed certain conditions for darshans, due to which also the inflow of the devotees has reduced. In the auction conditions, there is no condition that the temple is not liable to refund the amount paid by cancelling the license. Therefore, in view of the prevailing situation, the petitioner has submitted representation requesting for refund of the amount deposited after deducting the license fee for one month. Without passing any orders on the representation, the 3^rd respondent issued the impugned show cause notice dated 19.05.2021, which is served on the petitioner on 04.06.2021, inter alia stating that the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount is rejected and the petitioner was asked to pay the arrears of license fee, which is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 09.06.2021 to the show cause notice. Though the show cause notice is dated 19.05.2021, the petitioner has received the same on 04.06.2021. As seven days time stipulated

¶17

¶18

MGR,J WP_11111_2021

¶19

in the notice to submit explanation has expired even before 04.06.2021, the petitioner apprehends that the respondents may take coercive steps for recovery of the balance license fee.

¶20

Learned standing counsel submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the show cause notice issued. In the show-cause notice it is clearly stated that the petitioner has to submit his explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice . Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. However, he states that the respondents would consider the explanation submitted by the petitioner as per Rules and pass appropriate orders and take follow up action for recovery of the balance license amount.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the 3^rd respondent to consider the reply dated 09.06.2021 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice 19.05.2021, in its proper perspective, as per Rules, and pass appropriate reasoned order, without reference to the delay, if any, and communicate the same to the petitioner. Till such time, 3^rd respondent shall not take any coercive steps for recovery of the balance license amount.

¶22

With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

______________ M.GANGA RAO, J

16.06.2021 Vjl

MGR,J WP_11111_2021

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶29

W.P.No.11111 of 2021

¶30

16.06.2021

¶31

Vjl

B. Diwakar Babu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B. Diwakar Babu v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V. Ramesh, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Rama Koteswara Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt.Pothala Lakshmi Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Madineni Subhasini Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V Ramalingeswara Prasad Vs v Reddy Vijaya Kumar Reddy

Shaik Riyaz, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh