HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27570 of 2014 Date : 9-12-2014 Between :
A. Nagabhushanam Goud .. Petitioner And The A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Chairman/Managing Director, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others ..
Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Mr. K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for respondents : None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside proceedings No.C2/437(75)/2013-RM-Q, dated 25-8-2014 of respondent No.2 whereby he has cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner for running the business relating to building materials over the open space of Ac.0-12 cents, Stall No.13, at Peapully Bus Station.
I have heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Neither counter-affidavit is filed nor any one represented the respondents at the hearing.
The petitioner was granted open space of Ac.0-12 cents in Peapully Bus Station for a period of five years from 20-6-2013 to 19-6-2018 for the specific purpose of running the business in building materials. The monthly licence fee for the premises is fixed as under :
I to III Years - 20-6-2013 to 19-06-2016 --
Rs.3150/-
IV Year - 20-6-2016 to 19-6-2017..Rs.3150/- +(310(10%) = Rs.3465/-
V Year - 20-6-2017 to 19-6-2018..Rs.3465/- (519(15%) = Rs.3984/-
On 6-8-2014, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to the petitioner wherein it is alleged that the petitioner sub-let the space allotted to him to third parties. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 13-8-2014 wherein he has denied the allegation of sub-letting the licensed premises. By the impugned office order, respondent No.2, while terming the petitioner’s explanation as not convincing, terminated his license.
The relationship between the petitioner and the respondents is contractual. Ordinarily, this Court does not entertain Writ Petitions filed raising disputes arising under concluded contracts. The license was terminated on the allegation of violation of the terms thereof by the petitioner. If these allegations are found true, the license is liable for termination. The question whether the petitioner has violated the terms of license or not cannot be adjudicated in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The determination of this question requires appreciation of evidence to be adduced by both the parties. Generally, for unlawful termination of a contract, the aggrieved party is entitled to claim damages. I am therefore of the opinion that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to avail the common law remedy of a civil suit for questioning the termination of the license.
For the above mentioned reasons and without expressing any opinion on the legality or otherwise of the impugned termination order, the Writ Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of a civil suit.
As a sequel to the dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.34530 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-12-2014 AM