THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.5382 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was granted a licence to function as Rail Travelers Service Agency, way back in the year 1985. The licence was being renewed from time to time. A vigilance check was conducted in the office of the petitioner on 01.04.2009. The officials of the vigilance team paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the person who was operating the agency for the purpose of securing two tickets from Hyderabad to Mumbai, on Mumbai Express, on 02.04.2009, under Tatkal Scheme. It emerged that a sum of Rs.70/- was collected in excess of the permissible charges. Based on that, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, on 12.06.2009. An explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 17.06.2009, stating that the in- charge clerk had to travel to nearby booking station in an auto to procure the tickets and the persons themselves have paid that amount. All the same, the petitioner admitted the lapse and sought excuse. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, the 3rd respondent, passed an order, dated 21.10.2009, terminating the licence of the petitioner and forfeiting the licence fee of Rs.3,000/-, security deposit of Rs.55,000/-, that was furnished in different forms. The appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Chief Commercial Manager, the 2nd respondent, was partly allowed, deleting the forfeiture clause. The petitioner is aggrieved by the cancellation of licence. The petitioner contends that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice, in as much as neither the show cause notice, nor explanation submitted thereto, were taken into account. He submits that there is a provision for levying of penalty for minor lapses and there was no justification for the 3rd respondent in cancelling the licence for a minor lapse. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner admitted the lapse and there was no alternative, except to cancel the licence. It is stated that the show cause notice as well as the explanation were taken into account. Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C.V. Rajiv Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice, alleging that a sum of Rs.70/- was collected in excess of the ordinary charges for booking two tickets. The petitioner did not deny the allegation, but explained the circumstances under which the amount came to be collected. No effort was made by the petitioner to justify the collection at all. It is rather curious that the 3rd respondent has passed the impugned order, without even making reference to the show cause notice or the explanation. On the face of it, the order suffers from the vice of being violative of principles of natural justice. It is not in dispute that the respondents have the power to impose penalty, if any lapses are noticed. It is only when the violation on the part of a licency is very grave and such violation is resorted with a view to defraud the travelling public etc., that the severe punishment can be thought of. The petitioner has cited instances where the respondents have levied penalty on noticing lapses. In his appeal also, the petitioner made an offer to pay the penalty, if imposed. The basic infirmity with the impugned order would go to the root of the matter. On the sole ground that issuance of show cause notice and submission of explanation were not taken into account, the order is liable to be set aside. The next alternative is to remand the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration and disposal. This Court is of the view that the lapse on the part of the petitioner is only collection of Rs.70/-, that too, under the circumstances mentioned in the explanation. It is felt that ends of justice would be met, if the penalty of Rs.10,000/- is imposed against the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a penalty of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand). It is brought to the notice of this Court that the licence period had expired. The petitioner shall be entitled to seek renewal of the lecence. As and when such application is filed, the same shall be considered without reference to the order of termination. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.09.02.2011. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ