SAMIULLA KHAN Vs. TSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions are filed by the self-same petitioner by name Samiulla Khan against the self-same respondents 1 to 4 viz; Telangana State Road Transport Corporation( for short, 'TSRTC') represented by its Managing Director, Musheerabad; the Regional and Additional Managers, Adilabad Division and the Depot Manager of Nirmal District.

(2.) The prayers in all the writ petitions common but for different with regard to shop numbers and area read as follows:

(3.) The respective writ petition affidavits of the self-same deponent in support of the writ petitions prayers are that pursuant to the tender notifications dated 22.04.2016, the petitioner became the highest bidder of the 4 shops viz; (1). Seeds shop to an extent of 8 x 10 sft, (2) Sweet House to an extent of 11.9 x 13, (3) Fruit and Fruit Juice shop 6 x 10 and (4) Flower and loose pan in open space 6 x 10sft, and the respective lease agreements were entered on 24.08.2016 for the lease period upto 18.03.2018 for the seeds shop and till 05.08.2021 for the other shops and the petitioner deposited EMD and other security deposits respectively. It is the further averment that the Depot Manager(4th respondent) demanded bribe and the petitioner was reluctant to pay and the Depot Manager created nuisance stating that the petitioner at the Seeds shop-1, occupied beyond the lease extent unauthorizedly and issued notice dated 06.02.2017, to remove the same, but in fact there is no notice served on him. The 4th respondent came to the shop on 18.02.2017 and tried to demolish the shop through his staff with JCB which the petitioner could avert despite they beaten him. The 4th respondent also filed a false criminal case which is pending for adjudication. The 4th respondent bore grudge and issued show cause notice on 20.02.2017, and the petitioner challenged the same in W.P.No.7701 of 2017 is pending for getting instructions by the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. While stood thus, the proceedings canceling the licenses of the 4 shops issued are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petitions, since the 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings, without even considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, by termination of the subsisting license period of the shops in question, which not only effects the avocation of the petitioner but also other workers and their families livelihood and the petitioner will suffer acute and irreparable financial loss as he also availed bank loans for investing in the business and the action of the respondents 3 and 4 is revengeful and uncalled for. He thereby sought for setting aside the impugned proceedings of license cancellation and for its interim suspension pending disposal of the writ petitions so as to continue the petitioner to run the business in the 4 shops.