The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.36561 of 2014 Dated 01.12.2014 Between: Ch.Krishna Murthy …Petitioner And The Vice Chairman – cum – Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and 2 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.U.Ramanjaneyulu Counsel for the respondents: Mr.K.Srinivas Rao, SC for APSRTC
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the notice issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner vide proceeding No.O1/122(4)/2005- RM:KMM, dated 23-07-2014, whereby he has directed the petitioner to show cause why the license given to him for carrying on Iron and General business at stall No.2 of Thallada Bus Station, Khammam District, shall not be cancelled.
It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that under the license given to him, he was permitted to carry on the Iron and General business; that the license, which was given under the Deposit Operate and Transfer (DOT) Scheme, is valid up to 11.10.2025; that as the petitioner was incurring loss in the said business, he intended to start footwear business also in the said stall; that therefore, he has made a representation to respondent No.2 seeking permission to start the footwear business in addition to the Iron and General Business; and that, instead of giving such permission, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned show cause notice to the petitioner.
Except making an averment that he has made a representation to respondent No.2 seeking permission to carry on footwear business, the petitioner has neither filed a copy of the said representation nor given the details as to the date or atleast the month in which he has given such a representation. The further plea of the petitioner that even after receipt of the impugned show cause notice, he has represented to respondent No.2 reiterating his earlier request is also unsupported by any evidence. The impugned show cause notice was issued as far back as 23.07.2014. The petitioner has not substantiated his plea that till now he has made any representation, in writing, in reply to the same. Unless any order adverse to the petitioner’s interests is passed in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice, no cause would arise for the petitioner to invoke any legal remedy.
Mr.K.Srinivas Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation representing the respondents, submitted that as per his oral information, respondent No.2 has already terminated the petitioner’s license.
In the light of the above facts, I do not find any reason to entertain the Writ Petition filed questioning the show cause notice. If respondent No.2 has passed an order terminating the petitioner’s license, the petitioner shall be free to avail appropriate remedy to question the same.
Subject to the liberty given to the petitioner as above, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.45761 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is dismissed.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 1st December, 2014
LUR