IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16284 of 2010 Between: A. Velpandi ... PETITIONER a n d Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, rep. by its Regional Manager, Anantapur Region, Anantapur and another … RESPONDENT ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by A. Velpandi with a prayer to issue an order, writ or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Anantapur region – second respondent dated 21-05-2010 in proceedings No.02/122(112) 2006-RM-A terminating the licence granted to the petitioner to run tea stall at APSRTC Bus Station, Kadiri, Anantapur district and the consequential order of the Regional Manager, Anantapur region Anantapur – first respondent dated 28-06-2010 as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The petitioner is running a tea stall at open space measuring 5’ x 5’ beside DOT stall No.8 of APSRTC bus station, Kadiri on obtaining a licence. As per the terms and conditions of the licence, the petitioner has to sell only coffee, tea, milk and horlics. Since the petitioner started selling bakery items, proceedings have been initiated against him by issuing a show cause notice proposing termination of licence for contravention of the terms and conditions of licence. The second respondent considered the material brought on record and proceed to terminate the allotment of open space to the petitioner by order dated 21-05-2010. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Regional Manager, Anantapur – first respondent. The first respondent on reappraisal of the material brought on record did nit find any valid ground to interfere with the orders passed by the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, Anantapur region and thereby proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Hence, this writ petition. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel for APSRTC takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted an oral explanation to the show cause notice and the said oral representation has not been properly considered by the authorities and thereby orders passed by the primary authority and by the appellate authority are liable to be set aside. 6. I have gone through the material placed on record. The show cause notice came to be issued to the petitioner for flouting the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is specifically stated in the allotment letter that the petitioner has to sell the specified items. Since the petitioner started selling non-specified items, a show cause notice came to be issued proposing cancellation of licence. The primary authority having considered the contraventions of the terms and conditions of the licence proceeded to terminate the same. The appellate authority, on reappraisal of the material brought on record did not find any valid ground to interfere with the order of the primary authority and thereby dismissed the appeal. 7. The petitioner has been allowed to sell only specified items as per the terms and conditions of the licence. Since the petitioner started selling non-specified items, the primary authority issued a show cause notice proposing cancellation of licence. There is no irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the primary authority as confirmed by the appellate authority. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the orders passed by the primary authority and appellate authority in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to make a fresh application for allotment of the open space to run a tea stall and necessary direction may be issued to the authorities to consider the same. 9. This order does not preclude the petitioner from making a fresh application for allotment of open space. In the event of such application being filed, the concerned authorities have to consider the same in accordance with the regulations in force. 10. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 09, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.16284 of 2010 July 09, 2010