T.B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

1. These two writ appeals arise from a common judgment rendered in two writ petitions i.e., WP Nos. 16569 and 17136 of 2018.

2. Syed Abdul Moiz and V. Srinivas, who are the petitioners in WP No. 17136 of 2018, were allotted two different shops on licence basis in Karimnagar Bus Station Building under the control of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'the Corporation') on 20.4.2015 and 10.1.2018 respectively. V.M. Satish, the petitioner in WP No. 16569 of 2018, was granted similar licence for four shop rooms from 2014, 2016 and 2017 onwards.

3. All the aforesaid persons were issued with similarly worded notices terminating the respective licences and requiring them to deliver possession. Those notices refer to similarly worded clause in the licence deed under which the licensor had reserved the right to terminate the licence by giving one month's notice in case the premises are required by the licensor for public usage or for the use of the licensor. The writ petitions filed challenging those notices for termination of licence were dismissed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, these writ appeals.

4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants-writ petitioners quite in extenso. He argued that the learned Single Judge has misconstrued the pleadings of the parties and had carved out something which could be termed as a defence which was not raised by the licensor Corporation. The plea in that regard is that the learned Single Judge had essentially agreed with the petitioners' contention that the Divisional Manager of the Corporation did not have the power to terminate the licence and issuance of notice through that authority was without jurisdiction, while, according to the petitioners, such authority vests with the Regional Manager. The second plea is that there is no factual foundation at all to invoke the termination clause in the licence. The third plea is that the licence has been proposed to be terminated without giving a prior show-cause notice, thereby depriving the petitioners of an opportunity of pre-decisional hearing. It is further argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that during the proceedings, it was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, through applications, that other premises are available and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have considered issuing a direction for alternate accommodation. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the appellants that having regard to the proximity of the decision to restructure the bus stand building and the grant of licence to atleast one among the petitioners, it can be easily seen that the proposal to terminate the licence is a colourable exercise of power and is guided by malice and mala fide.

5. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation made reference to the materials referred to by the learned Single Judge and the material papers presented on behalf of the Corporation before the learned Single Judge. It is argued that the learned Single Judge had noted the files and after perusing them, had concluded that there was no reason to hold that issuance of notice of termination is unfounded. He also pointed out that the decision to restructure certain portions of the bus stand and further action on such decision is an ongoing process while grant of licence was relatable to earlier competitive bids and therefore, the mere proximity of any such events cannot lead to any conclusion of colourable exercise of power in the matter of the proposal to issue the notice of termination of licence.

6. We have considered the contents of the termination notices, which are impugned in the writ petitions. They state that the Government of Telangana has decided to develop Karimnagar as a Smart City and in tune with the decision of the State Government, it has been decided by the Corporation to renovate and modernize Karimnagar Bus Station so as to provide better amenities t