IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.C. BHANU WRIT PETITION No. 5747 of 2005 Between: A. Yellappa, S/o A. Giddamma, R/o H.No. 29-136-B, Peta, Kurnool Post and District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Divisional Manager, APSTC, Kurnool. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Depot, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the final notice dt. 14-3-2005 vide No. 01/437(7)/2003- DVM/KRN issued by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and consequently set aside the same by permitting the petitioner to sell all the standard company items in shop No. 3 of 3rd respondent bus stand. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NAGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3: MR.P.VINAYAKA SWAMY The Court at the admission stage made the following O R D E R: The petitioner filed this writ petition questioning the final notice issued by the first respondent on 14.03.2005 proposing to terminate the petitioner’s licence in respect of Shop No.3 in the third respondent depot. The petitioner was allotted Shop No.3 at Kurnool Bus Station to run Hot Chits and Khara (Packed items only) for a period of three years and to that effect, a deed of licence dated 07.04.2003 was executed between the parties. Because the petitioner has committed breach of terms and conditions of the agreement, the respondent-Corporation issued the final notice dated 14.03.2005 calling upon the petitioner to submit explanation as to why the licence granted to him shall not be terminated. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has submitted his explanation to the earlier show cause notices, no action has been taken by the respondent-Corporation. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation contended that the impugned notice is only a show cause notice to submit explanation and no steps have been taken to terminate the licence. The Divisional Manager is the competent authority to take appropriate decision. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit explanation to the first respondent and the first respondent shall take appropriate decision keeping in view the terms and conditions of the deed of licence and also the explanation that may be submitted by the petitioner. No order as to costs. _______________ (K.C.BHANU,J) Dt: 21.03.2005 usd To 1 The Divisional Manager, APSTC, Kurnool. 2 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool. 3 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kurnool Depot, Kurnool. 4 Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{AVLR}