IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No. 35842 OF 2025

18.12.2025 Between:

K. Padmaja .. Petitioner And Union of India, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Indian Railways, New Delhi & another ..Respondents

O R D E R:

Petitioner challenges the order dated 14.11.2025 of the 2nd respondent, whereby her licence was terminated and fresh tenders were called for through Notification dated –Nil- relating to the contract for operation and maintenance of Pay and Use Toilets at KSR Bengaluru City Railway Station. She asserts that the impugned termination order was issued without issuing any show cause notice and without complying with the order dated 06.11.2025 of this Court in Writ Petition No.33477 of 2025.

2. The case of petitioner is that disputes arose between herself and the 2nd respondent with regard to excess collection of licence fee in earlier quarters and the consequent refundable amount payable to her. Despite repeated representations requesting the 2^nd respondent to calculate the refundable amount and adjust the same towards subsequent licence fee, the 2nd respondent insisted upon payment of the full licence fee for the next quarter. In this background, petitioner is stated to have filed Writ Petition No. 33477 of 2025 questioning the inaction of the 2^nd respondent on her representation dated 14.10.2025 seeking refund of excess licence fee collected in earlier quarters. This Court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 06.11.2025, directing the 2nd respondent to consider petitioner’s representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order.

2.1. Pursuant thereto, petitioner submitted the representation dated 07.11.2025 to the 2^nd respondent requesting compliance with the directions, for which, the 2nd respondent, by letter dated 07.11.2025, informed that her representation was under active consideration, however, directed petitioner to pay full licence fee for the next quarter, notwithstanding the fact that refundable amount was yet to be determined and adjusted. It is stated, the due date for payment of licence fee for the quarter from 01.11.2025 to 31.01.2026 was 08.11.2025 by which date, a substantial amount was refundable to her, therefore, the question of payment of the full licence fee without adjustment did not arise. According to her, in the absence of such adjustment, there could be no default attributable to her.

2.2. While the things stood thus, the 2^nd respondent passed the order dated 13.11.2025 determining that petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs.8,84,578/- and communicated the said order to her by post on 17.11.2025. Petitioner contends that even prior to communication of the said order, the 2nd respondent passed the order impugned terminating her licence on the ground of non-payment of licence fee by 08.11.2025, without taking into account the refundable amount determined on 13.11.2025. She further asserts that, according to her calculation set out in the representation dated 14.10.2025, she was entitled to a total refund of Rs.49,06,184/-, out of which, Rs.11,04,657/- had already been adjusted towards the licence fee payable for the previous quarter, leaving a balance of Rs.38,01,527/-. Petitioner disputes the correctness of the determination made by the 2nd respondent on 13.11.2025 and states that the said determination itself records that refundable amount is subject to further examination by the 2^nd respondent. Petitioner reserves her right to challenge the said order dated 13.11.2025.

2.3. The main grievance of petitioner is that the impugned termination order was passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording her an opportunity of explanation. According to her, under Clause 13.2 of the Standard Conditions of Contract and in compliance with the principles of natural justice, issuance of a show cause notice before terminatio