- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 12064 OF 2024 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SRI N.VENKATESH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.333 ’SRI SAI NILAYA’ NTI LAYOUT, 1ST PHASE RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR KODIGEHALLI SAHAKARANAGARA POST BENGALURU – 560 092. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH M. DODDAMANI, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 027. 2. THE CHIEF TRAFFIC MANAGER(COM) BMTC CENTRAL OFFICE (COMMERCIAL) 2ND FLOOR, SHANTHINAGAR BUS-STAND BENGALURU – 560 027. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANJEEV B.L., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI MANJUNATH G.KANDEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR PROPOSED R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 DTD 03.04.2024 BEARING NO. BMTC/CO/TR/COM/61/2023-24, VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 3-4-2024, by which the license of the petitioner stood cancelled with immediate effect, on account of violation of the license conditions. 2. Heard Sri Sathish Doddamani, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Sanjeev B L, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioner was allotted a shop in Kempegowda bus stand on 15-01-2022 on certain conditions of running the said - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 stall. During the subsistence of the license, it transpires that the petitioner had sold products that were prohibited to be sold by the Corporation, in terms of the agreement. The proceedings then began against the petitioner on account of such default and the proceedings culminated in cancellation of the license of the petitioner and calling of tender to lease out the shop premises of the petitioner, on such cancellation of license. At that point in time, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.1247 of 2024. 4. This Court, while answering the prayer of the petitioner by its order dated 31-01-2024, read down the said order of cancellation, as a show cause notice, as it was in violation of principles of natural justice and directed certain action to be taken. The subsequent action taken is what forms the fulcrum of the subject lis. 5. The learned senior counsel Sri Sathish Doddamani appearing for petitioner submits that the tender of the petitioner should not have been opened, the opening of the tender is contrary to the order passed by this Court. He would further contend that he was not heard by the Vigilance Officer - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 at the time of preparation of vigilance report and therefore, on these two counts, the petition should be allowed. 6. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri B L Sanjeev would refute the submissions in contending that the tender of all the shops was a composite tender. The tender of the petitioner could not be separated or segregated and kept aside. The tender of all the shops were opened and the tender of the petitioner was kept aside and no action was taken on the tender till the orders were passed. Action is taken only on 27-5-2024, knowing full well that the action has been taken and the shop has been allotted to a third party, the petitioner without divulging the same, has presented the subject petition, is the contention of the learned counsel. 7. The learned senior counsel for petitioner would submit that, on coming to know that 3rd respondent has been allotted the shop, an application is filed to implead the 3rd respondent as a party respondent to these proceedings and the allotment of the shop made in his favour is also challenged. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel and other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was earlier before this Court in W.P.No.1247/2024 which comes to be disposed on 31-1-2024 by the following order: “The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the second respondent by which, the license granted to him is rescinded. The petitioner is a licensee from the hands of the Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as, 'Corporation' for short). The license is for vending of juice. 2. Heard Sri Sathish M.Doddamani, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.L.Sanjeev, the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: The Corporation issues a Tender Notification calling for applications from the interested for leasing out various open spaces coming within the precincts of the Corporation. The petitioner emerges successful and an agreement is entered into with him for an open space of 6 sq. ft. x 8 sq. ft. which would be 4.45 sq. mts. to sell juice. The specific contract that was entered into between the petitioner and the Corporation reads as follows:- “The Licensee and the Licensor have agreed to run the said commercial establishment under the following terms and conditions:- 1. That in Consideration of Rs.4,62,000/-(Four Lakhs Sixty Two Thousand Only) as security deposit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 equivalent to Eleven (11) months license fee. The amount of Rs.1,79,118/- is paid through E- Payment accounted vide Receipt No.92308 dated 17- 12-2021 & Balance Security Deposit amount of Rs.2,82,882/- paid through NEFT dated 20-12-2021 accounted vide Receipt No.92328 dated 23-12-2021 respectively for due and proper performance of these presents and also willingness of the licensee to pay the monthly licensee fee as detailed in the preamble of the agreement for the privilege of suing the premises at Kempegowda Bus- Station for running specific Business-Juice Stall for the needs of the passengers, the Licensor grants License to Licensee and authorizes him to use the said premises subject to the conditions herein appearing for a period of Six(6) years commencing from 15.01.2022 to 14.01.2028. The Security Deposit will not carry any interest. The Security-Deposit will be refunded after successful completion of the agreement after adjusting dues if any. 2. The area of Specific business-Juice Stall (open space) is 4.45 Sq.Mtrs. 3. Engaging of child labour is strictly prohibited. 4. The Licensee shall not vend items such as Liquor, Cement, Iron and Steel Explosives, Travel Agencies, Coin operated Telephones, STD & ISD booth, Telephone Products, any type of lotteries, gambling, Sugarcane Juice, Non-vegetarian food items etc. Further BMTC is not responsible for parallel business between other stalls at the Bus-Station. 5. The Licensee is permitted to run Specific Business-Juice Stall, except items which are illegal and prohibited by the Corporation. The Licensee is not permitted to run Hopcoms, Nandini Milk Parlors, Dormitory/Lodging, Refreshment Room, Luggage/Cloak Room, Coin Operated Telephone Booth, Digital Persons Weighing Machine, Bank ATM Counter, Telephone Booth, Parking and General Stall. 6. The Licensee is permitted to sell the products at M.R.P rates only/ at the rates prescribed by the local municipal body or any other authorities concerned. The Licensee shall not vend the products after expiry date". 4. The licensee i.e., the petitioner was permitted to run a juice stall in the open space and was prohibited - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 from selling several products quoted hereinabove. On the allegation that the petitioner has been violating the conditions of contract supra, the Corporation had issued several notices. To those notices, the petitioner did file reply to a few, and did not to a few. This resulted in the impugned order of cancellation of license by the Corporation. The cancellation of license is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 5. The learned Senior Counsel, Sri Sathish M.Doddamani appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the report of vigilance which has lead to passing of the impugned order is not served upon the petitioner and therefore, it is in violation of the principles of natural justice and would seek quashment of the entire proceedings on that score. The other ground is that the petitioner has not been selling all those prohibited products and it only a figment of imagination of the Corporation. 6. The learned counsel, Sri B.L.Sanjeev representing the Corporation would submit that an inspection was conducted by the vigilance and a report was drawn that has resulted in the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner. Ten notices were issued to the petitioner and none of them merited any reply. Therefore, the cancellation had to ensue. The learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The aforementioned fact of the agreement between the petitioner and the Corporation is not in dispute. The purpose of contract is as quoted hereinabove. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has violated the terms of the contract by selling all prohibited goods in the said premises which is leased out to him. No doubt, ten notices were issued to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. The petitioner has replied to a few and not to few. What comes about is the impugned order of cancellation of license which is based upon an Inspection Report dated 13.09.2023. The Inspection Report is admittedly not served upon the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 petitioner. Therefore, the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 9. The order impugned, therefore is to be read down as a Show Cause Notice for the petitioner to submit a reply. The Corporation shall also furnish the Inspection Report dated 13.09.2023 to the petitioner within one week from today. The petitioner shall reply to the Show Cause Notice within one week thereafter. The Corporation shall consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week thereafter. In all, the entire proceedings would get concluded within three weeks. The continuance of license of the petitioner shall depend upon the outcome of the order that would be passed by the competent authority in the proceedings that are now remitted back to its hands. 10. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that a tender notification is issued to lease out several open spaces including that of the petitioner. The tender process shall not go on only insofar as the open space which is leased out to the petitioner, only till the competent authority would take a decision in the matter as observed hereinabove. 11. It is made clear that the right of the petitioner to continue in the said premises is not adjudicated by this Court. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed.” (Emphasis supplied) Paragraph 10 assumes significance. This Court directed that the tender notification is issued to lease out several open spaces including that of the petitioner. The tender process should not - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 go on only insofar as the open space leased out to the petitioner. On 8-02-2024 the tender was opened. The tender of all the persons had to be opened, as it was a composite tender. Therefore, the entire tender is opened, but the shop of the petitioner is not allotted to any person, in terms of the direction at the hands of this Court quoted supra. 10. The impugned order comes to be passed cancelling the license on certain grounds on 03-4-2024. After the order, the tender is allotted to the 3rd respondent, only on 27-5-2024 long after the passage of the order impugned. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, there is complete compliance with what this Court observed in paragraph 10 quoted supra. No fault can be found with the Corporation in opening the tender, continuing the tender process, as the tender is taken to its logical conclusion only on 27-5-2024. Therefore, the first ground that the learned senior counsel seeks to project of violation of earlier order of this Court would tumble down. 11. The next submission is with regard to the vigilance report. The order is passed on the basis of the vigilance report - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 with regard to the petitioner selling certain prohibited goods. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks this Court to go through the goods that are sold to contend that he was selling only chips, juice, milk etc., I am of the considered view that this Court would not sit in the chair of the respondent/Corporation to assess whether the petitioner was selling juice, chips or otherwise. The only indulgence, is the decision making process. The decision making process, in the case at hand, is that a vigilance report was sought from the hands of the vigilance department of the Corporation. The vigilance report was made over to the petitioner prior to passage of the order impugned. The petitioner was heard. The decision making process is thus in accordance with law. Insofar as the cancellation of the license is concerned, this Court would not step into the shoes of the employer, as observed hereinabove, to assess what items the petitioner was selling inside the shop, whether it is prohibited or otherwise. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri B L Sanjeev submits that the petitioner has two other shops in the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:14491 WP No. 12064 of 2024 same bus station and his business is not put to jeopardy. The submission is also placed on record. On all the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, petition stands rejected. Interim order of any kind, subsisting as on today, stands dissolved. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11