Allowed

V.E. Venkatesulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC14 Sept 2021WP/19789/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the Writ Petition challenging the termination of a canteen licence. Setting aside the termination notice, the petitioner was granted one week to submit an explanation regarding non-payment of fees. The order stipulated that the licence would only be restored upon payment of arrears and consideration of the explanation, and respondents were restrained from inducting a third party.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; termination notice set aside; one week granted for explanation; conditional liberty given proceeding with payment of arrears; respondents restrained from inducting third party.

V.E. Venkatesulu Vs The Andhra Pradesh State… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.19789 OF 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the order of termination of licence passed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Vijayawada-second respondent herein vide proceedings No.T2/122(20)/2017-RM(T), dated 13.07.2021.

¶5

Heard Sri V.Dushyanth Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri N.Srihari, learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC, apart from perusing the entire material available on record.

¶6

Respondent-APSRTC granted licence in favour of the petitioner herein to run the business of Vegetarian and NonVegetarian canteen at Stall No.OS-44 of Madanapalle for a period of seven years, commencing from 20.04.2017 to 19.04.2024, on monthly payment of Rs.48,358/-. Alleging nonpayment of monthly licence fee for three consecutive months of March, April and May, 2021 and calling upon the petitioner herein to show cause as to why the licence should not be terminated, second respondent herein issued a show cause notice bearing No.T2/122(20)/2017-RM(T), dated 05.06.2021. Subsequently, vide the impugned notice, dated 13.07.2021, second respondent herein ordered termination of licence.

¶7

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner herein received the show cause notice, dated

¶8

AVSS,J W.P.No.19789 of 2021

¶9

¶10

05.06.2021, on 08.06.2021. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that, in the Cash Remittance form, dated 08.06.2021, respondent-APSRTC indicated the dues only for the months of March and April, 2021, but not for the month of May, 2021.

¶11

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, obviously, the said demand was raised for the months of March and April, 2021 only since the issue pertaining to the subsequent months, as regards the percentage of licence fee, was pending consideration before the Regional Manager, Tirupathi. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the said aspect would be very much evident from a letter bearing No.02/122(IA)/2021-RM(T), dated 24.07.2021, wherein all the Depot Managers of Chittoor Region have been instructed to collect 20% and 21% respectively for the months of May and June, 2021. It is eventually submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second respondent herein, having regard to the above submissions, grossly erred in issuing the show cause notice, indicating three months’ default. Apart from the above aspects, on non-submission of explanation, in response to the show cause notice, dated 05.06.2021, it is stated by the learned counsel that, since the petitioner herein had fallen ill during the relevant period due to Covid-19, he could not submit his explanation. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of termination of licence is unwarranted.

¶12

AVSS,J W.P.No.19789 of 2021

¶13

¶14

On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the very Writ Petition filed by the petitioner herein is not maintainable and the petitioner herein needs to approach an appropriate forum of law for redressal of his grievance.

¶15

It is a known reality that, for approximately 1½ years, the entire World is suffering untold misery and hardship due to the pandemic. In view of the prevailing situation, both the Union of India as well as the State Governments from time to time are showing liberal approach on various issues, including the recovery of amounts from the citizens. In the present case, in support of his submissions, as regards the illness due to Covid-19, learned counsel for the petitioner vide Memo, dated 13.09.2021, has filed various documents pertaining to the petitioner such as Medical Bill, Laboratory Report, Hospital Bill and Diagnosis Summary. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court the Diagnosis Summary, dated 30.06.2021, issued by Desai Hospital, Madanapalle. The said Diagnosis Summary shows the date of admission and date of discharge of the petitioner as 11.06.2021 and 30.06.2021 respectively. The said document also clearly shows that the petitioner herein suffered Covid-19 viral fever. This Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the said document pertaining to Diagnosis Summary. In order to have a quietus for the entire issue, this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons mentioned supra, deems it appropriate to allow

¶16

AVSS,J W.P.No.19789 of 2021

¶17

¶18

the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned notice, dated 13.07.2021, issued by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Vijayawada-second respondent herein. It is made clear that, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, petitioner herein shall submit explanation to the show cause notice, dated 05.06.2021, and, thereafter, it is open for the respondents herein to pass appropriate orders, after considering the said explanation. It is also made clear that this order will enure to the benefit of the petitioner herein only in the event of the petitioner paying all the arrears along with the explanation to be submitted. It is also further made clear that, till the above exercise is completed, respondents herein shall not induct any third party.

¶19

Accordingly, Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶21

14^th September, 2021. Tsy

¶22

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

V.E. Venkatesulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.E. Venkatesulu v. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

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

Jaggavarapu Venugopala Reddy, Vs A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Limited

Sunkavalli Dhanamjayudu Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation

Sri Sai Enterprises Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation limited

Ande Krishna Murthy Vs the Vidyut Ombudsman, Hyderabad, and 4 Otrs.

M/s Gouri Sankar Electricals, Vs The Andhra Pradesh Transmission Corporation Ltd.

Vallur Usha Rani, Vs The Honble Court of the First Additional Munsif Magistrate