Pandi vs The Managing Director, The Branch Manager, The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation and Shanmugam

M. Jaichandren, J.—In spite of notice having been served on the third Respondent and his name having been printed in the cause list, there is

no appearance on his behalf, either in person or through a counsel.

The main contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner is that the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated

07.06.2010, had been passed without issuing a show cause notice to the Petitioner.

A licence has been granted in favour of the Petitioner for running a canteen in the Paramakudi Branch of the Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation for the period from 03.04.2010 to 31.12.2011. However, the said licence had been cancelled by the impugned order of the first

Respondent, dated 07.06.2010, on the allegation that the Petitioner had not supplied tea to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation,

employees, on the night of 06.05.2010, and from 07.05.2010, he had not supplied food items to the said employees. However, it has been

admitted by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2 that no notice has been served to the Petitioner before the

cancellation of his licence, in accordance with Clause 9 of the agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the management of the Tamill

Nadu State Transport Corporation, Kumbakonam. It has also been pointed out that the temporary licence granted in favour of the third

Respondent had already ended.

In view of the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2, this Court finds it appropriate to set

aside the impugned order passed by the first Respondent, on 07.06.2010, in view of the fact that no notice had been issued to the Petitioner

before the said order has been passed. Accordingly, the impugned order of the first Respondent, dated 07.06.2010, is set aside. However, it

would be open to the Respondents 1 and 2 to issue appropriate notice to the Petitioner asking him to show cause as to why the licence granted in

his favour should not be cancelled. Only after giving him an opportunity of submitting his explanation to the Petitioner, further orders could be

passed by the said Respondents, with regard to the cancellation of the licence.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.