THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.25936 OF 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted calling in question an order passed on 05-10-2010 by the Group General Manager of the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited, the 1st respondent herein. The writ petitioner has been awarded a contract and license for establishing a catering stall on Platform Nos.2 and 3 at Raichur Railway Station by the 1st respondent Corporation, which is a Government of India enterprise. Through the impugned order the catering stall license of the writ petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect. This order has been issued on the ground that the Vigilance Wing of the Indian Railways have conducted an inspection on 18-08-2010 and noticed certain irregularities including availability of 108 railway tickets in the stall of the writ petitioner. Based upon the findings of the vigilance cell inspection, the impugned order has been passed. Sri N. Vijay, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has raised several contentions including the one, that before terminating the license granted, no principles of natural justice have been followed by the respondent Corporation and no opportunity of hearing has been accorded to the writ petitioner to put forth his defence, which could have possibly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the 1st respondent that his license for running the catering stall need not be cancelled. Therefore, for sheer violation or adherence to the principles of natural justice, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition deserves to be allowed duly setting aside the order passed by the 1st respondent Corporation. Though Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, countered this submission quite vehemently, but however, in fact, in Paragraph No.11 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri T.R. Ravinder, on behalf of the 1st respondent Corporation, a constructive mechanism is indicated by suggesting that the impugned order can be treated as a show-cause notice given to the writ petitioner and he can be given reasonable time to show cause and that the appropriate agency will take the explanation offered by the writ petitioner into consideration and pass afresh suitable orders. Taking into account the above suggestion, I consider it appropriate to direct the writ petitioner to treat the impugned order as merely a show cause notice, as that will enable him to continue his operations as a catering contractor at Platform Nos.2 and 3 of Raichur Railway Station. But however, the writ petitioner shall submit his explanation on or before 25-02-2011. He is also entitled to enclose such material, which he considers it appropriate in support of his defence. However, the explanation and the entire file be placed before an officer occupying a superior position than that of the Group General Manager of the 1st respondent Corporation, so that, that officer, uninfluenced by the decision taken by the Group General Manager on the previous occasion, will be in a position to arrive at an appropriate conclusion as to whether the license of the writ petitioner to run the catering stall really requires to be terminated at all or not. It is needless to mention that the order of the agency on behalf of the 1st respondent shall contain necessary reasons in support of the conclusion and the same will also be communicated to the writ petitioner. It is only apt to note that all other contentions canvassed in the writ petition are kept open. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Note: Issue copy in three days. (bo) mrk 7th February 2011.