HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU W.P.No.12846 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in terminating the Authorized Ticket Booking Agency of the petitioner vide proceedings No.S1/664(31)/2008-RM/EG dated 11.03.2011 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the same. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he belongs to scheduled caste community and he is physically handicapped person and un- employee. During the year 2008, the 1st respondent corporation invited tenders for appointment of on-line authorized Ticket Booking Agencies to East Godavari Region at Kakinada and one such agency is nearer to JNTU College, Kakinada. The petitioner applied for the same and he was appointed as Authorised Ticket Booking Agent for the said point after quoting a security deposit of Rs.25,101/-. 3. It is further stated that he entered into an agreement i.e., Deed of License on 25.12.2008 after paying the required EMD amount of Rs.25,101/-. He is running the agency from 25.12.2008 and the agreement period is for three years ending on 24.12.2011. While he was doing his business at JNTU, Kakinada in the month of December 2010 his daughter fell sick and she was admitted in the Hospital. As such, he employed one person to look after his day-to-day business as being SC and physically handicapped and solely depending on the meager income derived from the said agency. 4. It is further stated that the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice for termination of his agency vide letter S1/664(31/2008- RM/EG dated 31.01.2011 alleging that they have received a complaint stating that the ATB agency has sold ticket more than the actual fare and as such, directed to show cause as to why agency should not be terminated besides forfeiting of security as per Clause 30.0 of the agreement dated 25.12.2008. In response to the same, he submitted his representation stating that he never committed any such mistakes nor he sold tickets at the price over and above the price fixed by the corporation and further his employee might have committed the mistake when he has not present in the agency and requested to condone the irregularity if any committed by his employee, which is without his knowledge and further treating the same as first irregularity and giving the benefit under clause 30.0(a) of agreement as he is a physically handicapped person and depending only on the ATB agency for his survival. He further submits that he never defaulted in remitting the amounts for all these 2½ years and he used to remit the amounts collected promptly as per the terms and conditions of agreement. 5. It is further stated that without considering his representation, the 2nd respondent had issued the proceedings dt.11.03.2011 terminating the agency allotted to him. The terms of agreement especially clause 30.0(a) categorically states that if there is any misuse or creation of artificial demand or collection of excess fare, if the mistake committed for first time it can be condoned by imposing a penalty of Rs.500/-. Likewise there is also other sub-clauses to impose fine of Rs.1,000/- for second mistake etc., and inspite of the said clauses and without giving him an opportunity to serve the Corporation better in future, 2nd respondent terminated his agency license dated 25.12.2008. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit while denying the petition averments stated that Sri K. Krupananadam S/o Venkat Rao, Kakinada has participated in the Regional Tender Committee on 05.11.2008 for appointment of on line ATB Agent(OPRS) in East Godavari Region and he was informed vide Provisional Allotment Order No. SI/664(31) /2008-RM.E.G. dated 28.11.2008 that it is decided to appoint him as an ATB Agent NEAR JNTU College, Kakinada booking of tickets by the system of on line (OPRS) on payment of commission for a period of 3(three) years. It is further stated that the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.25,101/- towards Security Deposit. 7. It is further submitted that the Depot Manager, Kakinada vide his letter No 01/114(04)/11-KKD dated 13.01.2011 has informed that a complaint has been received from Sri I. Dileep, Kakinada dated 11.01.2011 alleging that the ATB Agent, JNTU Reservation Counter, Kakinada has demanded Rs.500/- for the ticket sought for from Kakinada to Hyderabad for the journey dated 17.01.2011 instead of actual fare of Rs.353/- and thereby the ATB Agent demanded excess of Rs.147/-. In order to probe into the matter, the Depot Manager, Kakinada has directed Sri P.K. Raju, outsider along with Sri D.B.V.S. Raju, Security Guard of Kakinada Depot with an advice to took ticket for the journey to Hyderabad on 16.01.2011. Accordingly, they have approached the ATB Agent on 12.01.2011 and took ticket to Hyderabad @ Rs.500/- instead of requisite fare of Rs.353/- on the demand of the ATB Agent. In the above incident, the Security Guard, Kakinada has submitted a report along with ticket bearing No EJ 02846 dated 18.12.2010 for Rs.353/- which was taken from the agent on 12.01.2011 for the journey from Kakinada to KPHB/Hyderabad for 16.01.2011. 8. It is further stated that the Assistant Manager(Traffic) Kakinada has also enquired with the OPRS and found that the ticket issued to the outsider was issued on 18.12.2010 in Online Booking as advance reservation. This clearly goes to show that the ATB Agent, JNTU Reservation Counter, Kakinada blocking the tickets in advance and creating artificial demand and later selling them in black rates basing on the demand, which is in violation of instructions issued by the Vice Chairman & Managing Director vide letter No. M/804(16)/10-OPD(M) dated 15.12.2010. In view of the above serious offence and in terms of Clause No 30.0 of the agreement, Sri K.Krupananadam, ATB Agent near JNTU College was advised vide show cause notice No. S1/664(31)/2008.RM.EG dated 27.01.2011 of the 2nd respondent to show cause as to why the ATB Agent should not be terminated besides forfeiting the Security Deposit lying with the Corporation to the accounts of the Corporation, within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which, further action will be initiated based on the evidence available on record. 9. It is further stated that Sri K. Krupanandam s/o Venkat Rao, ATB Agent near JNTU College, Kakinada has submitted explanation dated nil which is received in the 2nd respondent’s office on 08.02.2011 duly informing that the employee, who is working in his agency attends to issue tickets during his absence. Due to personal reasons, the ATB Agent did not attend the agency on 12.01.2011 and his employee had issued the tickets on 12.01.2011. He further informed that the said employee of the ATB Agent has handed over cash only as per tickets issued by the said employee and the agent was not aware of any excess collection made by his employee. It clearly goes to show his admittance of the incident. On perusal of the explanation submitted by Sri K. Krupananadam, ATB Agent near JNTU College, Kakinada to the show cause notice for termination by the 2nd respondent, it was observed that the explanation was not convincing and the irregularity committed is very serious besides tarnishing the image of the corporation in the eyes of travelling public and also violation of instruction issued by the Vice Chairman & Managing Director vide letter No. M/804(16)/10-OPD(M) dated 15.12.2010. After giving reasonable opportunity the OPRS ATB Agency allotted in favour of Sri K. Krupanandam s/o Venkat Rao, near JNTU College, Kakinada was terminated with immediate effect vide termination order No. S1/664(31)/2008-RM/EG dated 11.03.2011 of the 2nd respondent and Security Deposit lies with the Corporation shall be forfeited to the accounts of the Corporation and advised to handover the materials/ equipment supplied by the corporation to the Depot Manager, Kakinada. 10. It is further stated that the allegation of the petitioner that even without considering his explanation and also terms of agreement especially Clause 30.0 (a), the 2nd respondent herein has issued the termination order No. s1/664(31)/2008-RM/EG dated 11.03.2011 is totally arbitrary and illegal is not correct in view of Clause 30.0(a) & (b) ignoring Clause 30.0(c) of terms and conditions of the agreement. Hence, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner never defaulted in remitting the amounts and that he never committed any mistake nor sold the tickets at the prices over and above the price fixed by the corporation and that as his daughter fell sick, he employed one person to look after the day-to-day business and one of the clauses in the agreement provided imposition of penalty of Rs.500/- if the mistake committed is for the first time and therefore, the respondents sought to have imposed a fine instead of terminating the contract. 12. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that it is a serious illegality committed by the petitioner as he was selling the tickets over and above the price fixed by the officials of the R.T.C., thereby diminishing the image of the Corporation and in view of the severity of the acts, the contract was terminated and it requires no interference by this Court. 13. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Authorized Ticket Booking Agency at JNTU, Kakinada in the year 2008. The agreement period is for three years, which will be ended by 24.12.2011. As the Depot Manager received a written complaint from one Dilip to the effect that the petitioner has demanded Rs.500/- for the ticket sought for from Kakinada to Hyderabad, instead of actual fare of Rs.363/-, in order to cope up the matter, the Depot Manager has directed an outsider along with security guard of Kakinada on 16.01.2011 with an advise to take a ticket from Kakinada to Hyderabad. When he approached the agent for a ticket to Hyderabad, he gave the same at the rate of Rs.500/- instead of requisite fare of Rs.363/-. Accordingly, the security guard submitted a report stating that the ticket bearing No.EJ 02846, dt.18.12.2010 for Rs.363/-. Basing on the report, a show cause notice was issued for which, explanation was given. As the explanation was not satisfactory, the period of agreement was cancelled. It is also the case of the Assistant Manager(T)/Kakinada that he also enquired and found that the ticket issued to the outsider was on 18.12.2010 in Online Booking as advance reservation, thereby blocking the tickets in advance and creating artificial demand and later selling them at higher rates basing on the demand, which is a violation of the instructions issued by the first respondent. Therefore, it is a clear case of selling the tickets at higher rates than the rates prescribed by the RTC authorities. But, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the fact that it is a first mistake, the petitioner can be imposed fine as per Clause 30.0 of the terms and conditions of the agreement, which reads as follows: “Any fraudulent practice like collection of excess fare, black marketing of tickets, creation of artificial demand, misuse/abuse of software, tickets fraud etc., either directly by the agent or his/her representative/employee shall be treated as offence and attracts one or more following penal provisions (a) to impose penalty of Rs.500/- for first time (b) to impose penalty of Rs.1000/- for 2nd time (c) to terminate the contract besides recovery of loss caused to APSRTC depending upon the gravity of offence.” So, one of the terms of contract provides that in case of gravity of the offence, the contract can be terminated. Depending upon the gravity of the offence, a fine of Rs.500/- if it is for the first time or a fine of Rs.1000/- if it is for the second time can be imposed. Therefore, the respondents have got power to impose any penalty as per the terms as per Cl.30.0 entered into between the parties depending upon the severity and gravity of the misconduct or illegal act. Therefore, when the Depot Manager on receipt of written complaint from a third party that the petitioner was selling the ticket over and above the price fixed by the Corporation, he has not acted immediately basing on the said complaint from the third party. He instructed another person along with security guard to purchase a ticket. At that time also, the agent of the petitioner demanded more amount than the price fixed by the R.T.C. Therefore, in case of illegality of claiming more amount, one of the punishment is to terminate the contract. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order of termination is completely in accordance with the terms and conditions of contract entered into between the parties and there is no violation of any legal or statutory right on the part of the respondents and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU Date:27.07.2011 Rns