Writ petition challenging cancellation of a shop allotted to the petitioner by the District Scheduled Castes Services Co-operative Development Society for alleged sub-leasing. The Court held natural justice was complied with and sub-leasing violated Rule 9 III; dismissed the writ petition without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3252 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLINANDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 22039 OF 2024
Between:
Oddepalli Babu, S/o Late Mallesham, Agedabout46 years,Occ.^B-u9in.e99, R/o Shop No. 1, S.C. Corporation ShoppingComplex, DSCSCDSLtd.' Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.
...PET|T|ONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction moreparticularlyone in WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of therespondentsin passingthe impugned order No.2432 189184-1 daled7 t8t2024 in cancellationof allotted to the petitioner Shop No, 1, S.C. Corporation ShoppingComplex DSCSCDSLtd., Karimnagar, Karimnagar district as is illegal, arbitraryand contraryto law and violation of Article 14, 21 of the constitution ofIndia and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to evict thepetitioner from the Shop No.'l S'C' Corporation Shopping Complex DSCSCDSLtd Karimnagar, Karimnagar district.
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 15'1 CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstated in the affidavitfiledin support of thepetition,the High court maybe pleased to stay of all furtherproceedings pursuant to theinrpugnedOrder No.2432lB9lB4-1dated
]'
71812024 issued by the 3rd respondentby directing the respondents to continue the petitioner business in Shop No. 1, S.C.Corporation ShoppingComplex DSCSCDS Ltd Karimnagar, Karimnagar districtpendingdisposal of the Writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.ARUN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FORSOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRISAPAVATH SRINIVAS, SC FOR CO.OP DEV
The Court made the following: ORDER
HON'BLE MRSJUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
w PETITI ON No.2 039of2024
ORD ER:
Heard Sri G' ArunKumar, learned counsel appearing on behatf of thepetitioner,learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare,appearingon behalf of the respondent No.1 and SriSapavath Srinivas, learnedStanding Counsel, S.C.Services Co-operativeDepartment' appearing on behalfof the respondent Nos'2 and 3'
2 The petitioner approachedthe Court seeking prayer as under:
"...to issue a writ order ordirection moreparticularly one in WRIT OF MANDAMUSdeclaringthe action of the respondents in passing theimpugnedOrderNo' 2432/891a4-tdated 07.O8.2024 in cancellationoF allottedto the petitioner Shop No.1, S.C. CorporationShopping ComplexDSCSCDSLtd Karimnagar,KarimnagarDistrict as is illegal,arbitrary and contrary to law andviolation of Article 14,21 of the constitution ofIndia and set aside the same and consequently directthe respondents not toevict the petitioner from the ShopNo.1, S'C' CorporationShopping Complex DSCSCDSLtd Karimnagar, Karimnagar districtand pass such other order ororders as this Hon'bleCourtmay deem fit andproper in the circumstancesof the case'"
)
allotted shop No.1 S.C. Corporation Shopping Complex, Karimnagar in his favour as a tenant and since then, the petitioner was running the said shop for his livelihood. While things stood thus, the respondent No.2 had issued proceedings No. 2432/89/84-1 dated 05.02.20;24 a[eging that the petitioner had violated the shop allotment rules 1 and 9 and had Subleased the said allotted shop to Sri Shaik Nazir Resident of Karimnagar and passed the order to vacate the said shop within three (3) days. Aggrieved by the same, W.p.No.3475 of 2024 was filed before this Court and vide Order dated 05.02.2024, interim stay was granted as prayed for. However, the 3d respondent passed impugned order dated 07.08.2024 cancelling the petitioner.s shop allotment without any cogent reasons. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is flled.
"6. I submit that in reply to para No.6, it is submitted that the petitioner filed an appeal before the 3rd respondent as per the directions of this Hon,ble Court in W.P.No.3475 of 2024, upon receipt of the representation, the 3rd respondent/District Collector had issued a show cause notice
J
dt'.25.07.2024callingfor the explanationfrom the writ petitioner. Inpursuance of the said showcausenotice' he submittedexplanation dt: 3l'07 '2024 and as well as heard his version.He stated that the said shop was allotted 20years back, running wood windows and doors sellingbusiness and Sri Nazeeris working in his shop as aworker and he is not the tenant of the shop' At the sametime, the this respondent also submitted the inspectionreport along with documentaryevidence' which revealsthat the writ petitioneris not paying the rent regularlyand more over at the time inspection it is found thathe subleased to one Mr'Shaik Naseerfor a rent of Rs.1500/-per month' Thereby' the 3rd respondent /District Collectorhad passed the impugned orderDt:07'08'2024taking into considerationof Rule 9 III of District ScheduledCastes Service CooperativeSociety Limitedallotmentof shops in ShoppingComplex to SC beneficiaries rules "Sub- leasing ofmortgaginq of shopis totallyprohibited' The District ScheduledCastes Service CooperativeSociety Limited shallbe at liberty to cancel the allotmentand get the beneficiaryvacated and to take otherlegal action incase if any sublease has come to notice' Thus it is clearlyevidentthat, the petitioner has contravened the Rule No.1,8,9III of District ScheduledCastes Service CooperativeSociety Limitedallotmentof shops SC beneficiaries in ShoPPing Complexto the shop toother Rules/conditions, by subleasing
4
persons. Therefore, the allotment of the shops WAS cancelled vide impugned proceedings.,,
R DTH RE RD:
.)
./.
/,,'
As a sequel, themiscellaneouspetitions, if any, pendingin
the Writ Petition shallalso stand closed.
I
SD/- K. AMMAJI ASSISTAN\REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECiION OFFICER
To
1 one CC to SRIG.ARUN KUMAR, Alyqc-at9.fQe.Ucl . 2 i;; d6ri"-cPlonSoCrni- WELFnne,Hi'shcoJrt ror the state or Telanoana. at Hvderabad.[OUTI ,l ffi t6 6 diiSA;jAVAlFisEirtrvns,sc FoR co-oPDEV [oPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies PSK. LS g
t I
HIGH COURT
DATED:1110912024
ORDER
{
WP.No.22039 of 2024
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS.
C")q'$ -w"
2 issues framed by the court
Was the cancellation of the petitioner's shop allotment valid despite allegations of sub-lease in violation of allotment rules?
Were principles of natural justice violated in passing the cancellation order?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Oddepalli Babu
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare
The District Scheduled Castes Services Co-operative Development Society Ltd., Karimnagar, Rep. by its Executive Director
The District Collector/Chairman, The District Scheduled Castes Services Co-operative Development Society Ltd., Karimnagar
Surepalli Nanda
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
