Remanded

Thampula Suman v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC21 Apr 2025WP/11740/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the cancellation of an MeeSeva franchise without prior notice or inquiry. The court set aside the impugned order for violation of natural justice and directed the authorities to issue a show-cause notice within three months.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation order set aside; respondent directed to issue show-cause notice and pass reasoned order within three months; petitioner permitted to continue operations pending disposal.

Thampula Suman Vs The State of Telangana — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s6 ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE TWENry FIRST DAY OF APRIL. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11740 OF 2025

¶7

Between:

¶8

Thampula Suman, S/o. Ramaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o. H. No. 1-78, Nagaiahpally, Vemulawada Mandal, Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary lnformation Technology Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶12

The District Collector, Rajanna - Sircilla District

¶13

The Commissioner, ESD (MEE SEVA) Road No. 7, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶14

Telangana State Technology Services Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Registered office at 2nd Floor HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.RESpONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No. 2 in cancelling the MEESEVA Franchise of the petitioner (TS-FKR004), vide proceedings dated 25.03.2025 and Proceedings No. D/399/2025, without issuing show cause notice and without affording a reasonable opportunity of showing cause contrary to the procedure envisaged under Rule 8 of Telangana lnformation Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules, 2011 and the uniform penalty structure as envisaged in Li. No. 633/ESD/Rurall2O14, dated 1510312014 issued by the Respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of principles of natural justice apart from violative of article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently to direct the respondent No. 2 to release the seized material of the petitioner's MeeSeva Franchisee (TS-FKR004) and permit him to continue operations without causing any hindrance.

¶17

lA NO:^'f OF 2025

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned proceedings D139912025, dated 2503.2025 of the 2nd respondent and not to take any coercive steps persuant to the same, pending disposal of the above writ petition.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI JOGINIPALLY SAI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: GP FOR INFORMATTON TECHNOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 5: SRI L.RAVINDER, AGP FOR REVENUE

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: -

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

)

¶23

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.1174O of 2025

¶25

ORDER

¶26

It is stated that the petitioner has been engaged i.n the' business of Meeseva Franchise at Vemulawada Tou,n and Mandal, Rajanna-Sircilla District having been selected in terms of the policy laid down by the Government under various G.O.s uide proceedings No.D I 399 I 2025 since, 2017 and subsequently, the said Franchise has been renewed every year uide Franchise No.TS-FKROO4 on 3 i.O3.2O23 after collecting necessary annual maintenance at Rs.5,O00/-. It is further stated that, without issuing aly notice and without conducting any enquiry, the respondents have passed the impugned order uide proceedings No.D/399 12025, dated 25.03.2025 cancelling the Meeseva Franchise, on the ground that the petitioner is not doing his service properly and involved in multiple cases against Government and as per Para 2 (a) i(a)(c)(d)) of Government Memo No.467 llTBe,ClMeeSeva/2o16, dated 28.12.2016, the petitioner is disqualified to be continued as Meeseva Franchise as he has violated the conditions imposed by the Government.

¶27

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri L.Ravinder, learned Assistant Government

¶28

¶29

¶30

CVBR. J Wp_l1740 2025

¶31

Pleader for^{Revenue appearingfor respondentNos-1 to 5 and} lr,ith their^{consent,this writ petition is being disposed of at the} admission^stage.

¶32

Learned^{counsel for the petitionerhas submitted that,} before^{passingthe impugned order,the respondentauthorities} dicl not^{conduct any enquiry with regard to the allegationsmade} against^{the petitioner and the respondent authoritiesalsonot} issued any^{notice and the said action on the part of the} respondent^{authorities amounts to violationof 1:rinciplesof} natural^justice.

¶33

4 . lrarned^{AssistantGovernment Pleader for Revenue, on} instructions,^{would submitthat against the petitioner, number} of complaints^{have been submittedby the villagers statingthat} the petitioner^{is not properly renderingservices and therefore,} the very^{purpose and object of establishment of Meeseva} Franchise^{in the said village is defeated.Hence,the'respondent} authorities^{have cancelled the said Franchise.}

¶34

This^{Court has carefullyexaminedthe impttgned orde r} passed by^{respondentNo.2 cancellingthe MeesevaFranchise of} the petitioner.^{Except stating that a complainthasbeen} received^{that the petitioneris not renderinghis services properly}

¶35

¶36

CVBR, J wp I 1740 2025

¶37

¶38

and involved^{inmultiple cases against the Government,no} enquiry^{has been conducted. It isfurther seen from the} impugned order^{that the complaint, which is theba sis [or'} cancellation^{of theMeesevaFranchise, was alsonot} communicated^{tothe petitionernor he was called for any} explanation^{for the proposedaction of cancellation of Meescva} Franchise.^Pima facie,^{the impugned order passcd by} respondent^{No.2 is not in consonancewith the principlesof} natural^{justiceand on the sole groundof violationof principles} of natural^{justice, the impugned orderis liableto be set aside.} However,^{if the petitionerhas violated any termsand conditions} of the^{Government inMemoNo.467} IITE&C lMeeSeva/2O^16, dated 28.12.2016,^{respondent No.2 is at liberty to issue show-} cause notice^{duly supplyingall the materialwhich is the basis} for issuance^{of show-causenotice and'aftersubmissronof the} explanation^{by thepetitioner,pass areasonedorder in} accordance^{with law and communicate thesame tothe} petitioner.^{The entire exercise shall be completedwithin a} period of^{three(O3) months from the date of receipt of a copyof} Ihis order.

¶39

¶40

CVBR, J Wp 11740 2025

¶41

6 With the above observations, this Writ^petition is disposed

¶42

of. There shall be no order as to costs

¶43

7 As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

¶44

shall stand closed

¶45

SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTTON OFFICER

1 The Principal Secretary lnformation^{Technology Department.} Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana

¶50

2 The District Collector, Rajanna - Sircilla District

¶51

J The Commissioner, ESD^(MEE SEVA)^{Road No. 7, Ba\ara} Hills, Hyderabad 4 The Managing Director, Telangana State^Technology Services Ltd., Registered office at 2nd Floor HACA Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad.

¶52

E The Tahsildar, Vemulawada Mandal Rajanna Sircilla District.

¶53

6 One CC to SRI JOGINIPALLY SAI KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC]

¶54

7 Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶55

Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT]

¶56

o Two CD Copies PSK. GJP tu

HIGH COURT

DATED:21 10412025

ORDER

WP.No.11740 of 2025

gr--
!,,J
.$
ii I,
$* a'
q
-
''t'.-;y''
:-.-'

¶62

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT^PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q\

Thampula Suman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thampula Suman v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharavath Bhimla Naik and 4 others Vs The State of Telengana and 4 others

M. Chandrashekar Vs The State of Telangana

Madhuri Saritha Vs The State of Telangana

Konakati Anitha, Vs The State of Telangana

Poreddy Surendra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Bokkala Sravanthi, Vs The State of Telangana