G Pavan Kumar v. State Of Ap

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO Dated:19.04.2018 Between:

Gudipati Pavan Kumar, S/o. Venkata Ratnam, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Private, R/o.H.No.27-2-1763, Lakshmi Nagar, Balaji Nagar, Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District.

... Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Information And Technology, Electronics & Communication, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh and others.

... Respondents The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO ORDER:

K.Sasirekha was granted license to establish Mee Seva Center in Jaker Hussain Colony in Nellore Town. In the year 2017, on an application made by the petitioner, the license was transferred to the petitioner from K.Sasirekha. Petitioner applied for shifting of Center from Jaker Hussain Colony to place near V.R.College, Nellore. He appears to have submitted representations to Hon'ble Minister for Agriculture and other authorities, but no such permission was granted. However, the petitioner on his own shifted the location of Mee Seva Center from Jaker Hussain Colony to place near V.R.College and started operating. On coming to know of such shifting without authorization, the franchise reported to the Joint Collector. Accordingly, Joint Collector authorized the franchise to enter into fresh agreement with the old operator after duly cancelling the authorization of the present operator.

2.

The facts noted above will make it clear that petitioner was not the original license holder, but, he was permitted to operate the Mee Seva Center, granted earlier to K.Sasirekha in Jaker Hussain Colony. He has unauthorizedly shifted the operation to place near V.R.College. That being so,

responding to the request of the franchise permitting the franchise to cancel the authorization granted to the petitioner cannot be found fault with. It does not amount to improper exercise of power, acting arbitrarily or vindictively nor it is a case of non-application of mind. Having violated the terms of license granted, petitioner cannot take the plea of equities. Thus, the writ petition merits no consideration. 3.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration, if any, in this case shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J 19.04.2018 SS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO 19th APRIL, 2018 SS