V.Rajeswari And 3 Others vs State Of Telangana And 6 Others

Challenging the termination orders dated 12.05.2022 and 13.05.2022, the present writ petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the official respondents, without considering the fact that the security deposit of six months is with the authorities concerned and without taking into consideration the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent on 31.10.2020, have issued the impugned termination orders.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further stated that even as per Clause 27(a)(i) of Deed of Licence, if the licensee defaults in payment of licence fee, the licence can only be terminated for three months consecutively or three times in a calendar year. But, the official respondents, without properly verifying as to whether the petitioners have defaulted or not for three months consecutively, have issued the impugned termination orders.

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has vehemently opposed the very maintainability of the writ petition and stated that the petitioners herein on an earlier occasion had filed W.P.No.18702 of 2020 and batch and this Court vide common order dated 21.10.2020 had categorically held as under :

“Till such time, a decision is taken and orders are passed by the authorities, the Corporation shall not insist the petitioners herein for payment of the lease amount/licence fee for the months of April, May and June, 2020. However, the petitioners are directed to pay 50% of the lease amount/licence fee for the months of July and August, 2020, within a period of three weeks from today. Any amounts which are due prior to April, 2020, shall also be cleared by the petitioners, within a period of three weeks from today. lt is however made clear that in case the petitioners do not pay the amounts as directed by this Court, this interim direction granted by this Court shall automatically stands vacated and the official respondents are free to take necessary steps as per law.”

But, the petitioners have not complied with the said order and therefore left with no other alternative, the official respondents had to pass the impugned orders.

When this Court enquired with the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to complying with the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.18702 of 2020 and batch, dated 21.10.2020, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners have not complied with the interim order passed by this Court, as the security deposit is for a period of six months and the same is still with the official respondents and has to be adjusted and if the same is adjusted as per the circular issued by the Corporation, there will not be any default by the petitioners. Therefore, there was no need to comply with the said interim order.

Admittedly, the petitioners have approached this Court on an earlier occasion and obtained the interim order where this Court has directed the petitioners to pay some amount. Instead of complying with the said interim order, the petitioners have not complied with the same on the ground that the security deposit is still with the official respondents. The said argument cannot be countenanced. Once this Court has directed the petitioners to deposit the monthly licence fee as extracted above, the petitioners were legally obligated to comply with the same. If they were aggrieved by the said interim order, they ought to have filed a petition seeking review or filed Writ Appeal against the said order, but they simply cannot keep quiet and expect the authorities not to take any further action. The Corporation has passed the interim order as the petitioners have not complied with the earlier order and as there was no legal impediment for passing the interim order as the stay granted by this Court was subject to payment of the monthly licence fee as stipulated in the said order.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have not complied with the interim order granted by this Court on 21.10.2020, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the termination orders passed by the authorities concerned.

The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.