APHC010049332026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 3128 of Between: 1. P GOPAL REDDY, PROPRIETOR, M/s.GOPAL REDDY MAN POWER CONSULTANCY SERVICES SOCIETY, D.NO.1 VILLAGE, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT 1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. VIJAYAWADA.- 520013 2. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OPERATIONS, APSRTC, KADAPA ZONE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY ANDHRA PRADESH 4. THE DEPOT MANAGER APS PRADESH.- 516269 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.VENKATESWARLU KOLLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): -None- 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 3128 of 2026 P GOPAL REDDY, PROPRIETOR, M/s.GOPAL REDDY MAN POWER CONSULTANCY SERVICES SOCIETY, D.NO.1-22, PEDDA KOTTALA VILLAGE, KALLUR, KURNOOL DISTRICT- 518218. AND THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 520013 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OPERATIONS, APSRTC, KADAPA ZONE, ANDHRA PRADESH.-516001 THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT, RAYACHOTY ANDHRA PRADESH- 516269 THE DEPOT MANAGER APSRTC, RAYACHOTY DEPOT, ANDHRA 516269 ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.VENKATESWARLU KOLLA Counsel for the Respondent(S): IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA P GOPAL REDDY, PROPRIETOR, M/s.GOPAL REDDY MAN POWER 22, PEDDA KOTTALA ...PETITIONER THE ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OPERATIONS, APSRTC, KADAPA THE DISTRICT PUBLIC TRANSPORT OFFICER, ANNAMAYYA RTC, RAYACHOTY DEPOT, ANDHRA ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 The Court made the following order: The petitioner was awarded execution of HSD Oil Top-Up outsourcing work at Rayachoti Depot for a period of two years from 01.10.2024 to 30.09.2026, pursuant to a Tender Notification dated 18.06.2024. An agreement dated 11.09.2024 was executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. 2. Alleging that certain outsourced workers drove the buses inside the Depot unauthorizedly causing damage to the Corporation buses and irregularities in HSD Oil Top-Up, the 3rd respondent issued a Show cause notice dated 27.11.2025 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why the agreement shall not be terminated for violation of conditions in terms of Clause Nos.23 and 24. Subsequently the Agreement was terminated vide Order dated 17.01.2026, impugned in the present writ petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Aravala Ramarao, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 4. During the course of arguments on 11.02.2026, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed a copy of the reply stated to have been submitted by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025 issued by the 3rd respondent. While pointing out that the said reply / letter addressed to the Executive Director i.e., the 2nd respondent, does not appear to be a reply to the Show Cause Notice, this Court adjourned the matter to enable the petitioner to 3 file a copy of the reply along with an affidavit, so that the necessary orders with reference to the relief sought for by the petitioner, can be granted. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a copy of the reply stated to have been submitted pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025 along with I.A.No.2 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the said reply states that the same was submitted on 19.12.2025 to the 3rd respondent and inspite of the same, the order of termination impugned in the writ petition was passed. He submits that the order of termination is not sustainable as no proper enquiry was conducted and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner, much less by supplying enquiry reports / material documents before terminating the agreement. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the APSRTC made submissions stating that prior to issuance of the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025, three notices were issued referring to the instances of driving of the buses unauthorizedly by the outsourcing HSD Oil top- up workers and the damage caused to the buses etc., and ultimately after issuance of Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025 referred to above and by affording opportunity to the petitioner to submit the explanation, the impugned termination has been passed. Referring to the explanation stated to have been submitted on 19.12.2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025(Ex.P2), the learned counsel submits that the same is in the nature of some complaint against the DPTO, Rayachoti, the 3rd respondent herein, who issued Show Cause Notice 4 and in fact a copy of the same was marked to the DPTO, Nandyal, who is not the concerned officer. He contends that without submitting specific reply / explanation to the Show Cause Notice, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the Termination Order and as such, he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that in the affidavit filed along with the writ petition, there is no specific averment that the petitioner submitted his explanation / reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2025. In Para No.12 of the said affidavit, it is stated as follows: “I have once again submitted a detailed explanation to the Executive Director, i.e., Respondent No.2, clearly addressing all the allegations mentioned in each of the notices. Copies of the said notices and my explanations thereto are herewith enclosed for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.” 9. However, in Para No.4 of the additional affidavit filed along with I.A.No.2 of 2026, it is inter alia stated that “dt.18.12.2025, I have given explanation to the respondent No.2 and on 19.12.2025, I have given explanation to the 3rd respondent. Be that as it may. 10. This Court has perused the explanation stated to have submitted on 19.12.2025, filed along with the I.A.No.2 of 2026, which is the same document filed as Ex.P2 in the writ petition. A reading of the same, which is in vernacular 5 language would clearly indicate that it is not an explanation to the Show Cause Notice, but a complaint to the 2nd rsespondent / Executive Director, making serious allegations against the 3rd respondent. While the petitioner is at liberty to make a complaint to the 2nd respondent, he is supposed to submit appropriate reply / explanation when a Show Cause Notice with reference to the terms of the agreement was issued. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to impress upon the Court that Ex.P2 itself is the reply to the Show Cause Notice, this Court is not inclined to appreciate the same. As the termination of agreement was preceded by a Show Cause Notice giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation, having failed to avail the opportunity afforded, the petitioner is not right in contending that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. 11. On an appreciation of the submissions made, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits, warranting exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 19.02.2026 BLV 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA W.P. No: 3128 of 2026 Date: 19.02.2026 BLV