terminating his licence and calling upon him to pay additional licence fee of Rs.1,97,690/- for utilization of additional space admeasuring 2185 square feet. = Significantly, there is no examination of the issue as to whether the petitioner had used the additional space and no finding is recorded in that regard. Once the APSRTC undertook before this Court that the said issue would be examined and only after such examination, the demand for payment of additional licence fee towards use of additional space would be enforced, notwithstanding the failure, if any, on the part of the petitioner to submit his explanation, the APSRTC was bound to examine the said issue independently on the basis of the material available before it, come to a conclusion and only thereafter take necessary action in the matter. The impugned termination order dated 24.12.2012 is therefore found to be in violation of the undertaking given by the APSRTC before this Court in W.P. No.35000 of 2012. 5. The termination order dated 24.12.2012 is accordingly set aside. It shall be open to the APSRTC to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013

Date: April 25, 2013

Between:

G. Venkat Narayana                                                             …          Petitioner

And

1. The Depot Manager, APSRTC,

   Bhadrachalam, Khammam District & 2 others.                 …          Respondents

*           *           *

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013

ORDER:

            The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings dated 24.12.2012 issued by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) terminating his licence and calling upon him to pay additional licence fee of Rs.1,97,690/- for utilization of additional space admeasuring 2185 square feet. 

2.         The present writ petition is the third in a series of cases filed by the petitioner on this issue.  The first writ petition, W.P. No.17298 of 2012, called in question the proceedings dated 06.06.2012 passed by the APSRTC requiring the petitioner to pay Rs.1,97,690/- towards unauthorized occupation of this open space.  

The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 27.08.2012 on the ground that the APSRTC had not provided a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner but leaving it open to it to issue an appropriate notice to him; giving an opportunity to submit his explanation, along with a personal hearing, and thereafter to pass a fresh speaking order.  

Thereupon, the APSRTC issued proceedings dated 19.10.2012 reiterating its demand that the petitioner should pay the sum of Rs.1,97,690/-. 

The said proceedings were challenged in W.P. No.35000 of 2012.  

By order dated 20.11.2012, this Court disposed of the said writ petition recording the submission of the learned standing counsel for the APSRTC that separate proceedings were being initiated to examine whether the petitioner had used this additional space and undertaking that the impugned proceedings would not be enforced till the said issue was examined.

3.         It is pursuant to this order that the APSRTC claims to have issued show cause notice dated 22.11.2012.  

According to it, the petitioner failed to submit his explanation thereto.  

The APSRTC then proceeded to issue the termination order dated 24.12.2012 which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

4.         Therein, having recounted the past history, the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, APSRTC, Khammam, merely stated that after the show cause notice dated 22.11.2012 was issued to the petitioner, he did not submit his explanation thereto and in view of the same, he ordered that the petitioner’s licence be terminated duly forfeiting the security deposit.  

Significantly, there is no examination of the issue as to whether the petitioner had used the additional space and no finding is recorded in that regard.  

Once the APSRTC undertook before this Court that the said issue would be examined and only after such examination, the demand for payment of additional licence fee towards use of additional space would be enforced, 

notwithstanding the failure, if any, on the part of the petitioner to submit his explanation, 

the APSRTC was bound to examine the said issue independently on the basis of the material available before it, come to a conclusion and only thereafter take necessary action in the matter.  

The impugned termination order dated 24.12.2012 is therefore found to be in violation of the undertaking given by the APSRTC before this Court in W.P. No.35000 of 2012. 

5.         The termination order dated 24.12.2012 is accordingly set aside. 

It shall be open to the APSRTC to examine the issue afresh in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders. 

6.         The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. W.P.M.P. No.4334 of 2013 shall stand closed in the light of this final order.  No costs.

__________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J

Date: April 25, 2013.

BSB

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

 

WRIT PETITION No.3490 of 2013

Date: April 25, 2013

BSB