HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.27531 of 2014 Date : 9-12-2014 Between :
G. Thimma Reddy ..
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(109)/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 cell phone recharge coupons and electrical goods over the open space of Ac.0-05 cents 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.0-05 cents in Peapully Bus Station for a period of five years from 1-12-2013 to 30-11-2018 on a monthly licence fee of Rs.1000/-. The licence was granted for the specific purpose of running the business in electrical goods and cell phone recharge coupons. On 6-8-2014, respondent No.2 has issued show cause notice to the petitioner wherein it is alleged that the petitioner was found sub-letting the space allotted to him. The petitioner has submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 23-6-2014 wherein he has sought to explain the existence of articles other than those permitted to be sold by him in the licensed premises. He has however denied sub-letting of the space allotted to him to third parties. By the impugned office order, respondent No.2, while terming the petitioner’s explanation as not convincing, terminated his licence.
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.34476 of 2014 filed for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.
Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-12-2014 AM