THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.5123 and 10343 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: As much as the petitioner in both these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Respondent – Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has granted license to the petitioner by agreement, dated 08.01.2008, by allotting her a room with 12 feet width and 14 feet length, situated between the Regional Manager’s Office and Bus Station at Anantapur, @ Rs.5,116/- towards license fee, to run a Tea and Tiffin Centre. It appears, the petitioner has unauthorizedly put up zinc sheets and extended the structures on both sides and in front of the said licensed premises. She submitted a representation to the respondent on 02.02.2008 seeking to allot additional space of 4 feet in both sides and 8 feet in front side. When her claim was rejected, she questioned the same by filing Writ Petition No.5123 of 2008, in which, this Court by way of interim order, dated 11.03.2008 directed the respondent not to terminate her license by making it clear that the said order will not preclude the Corporation from collecting additional license fee for the additional space utilized by her. Consequent to the same, the respondent issued proceedings bearing No.02/122(145)/2007 RM ‘A’, dated 15.04.2008 by fixing additional license fee of Rs.41,318/- for the area, which is in occupation of the petitioner unauthorisedly in front and both sides of the licensed premises. Questioning the said proceedings, she filed Writ Petition No.10343 of 2008 before this Court and obtained interim order. In these Writ Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the additional license fee, which is being charged on the petitioner, is ex facie illegal. It is submitted that the petitioner is in occupation of additional area of 5 feet in front side and 4 feet on northern and southern sides of the licensed premises and the measurements mentioned in proceedings, dated 15.04.2008 are without any basis. It is not in dispute that the area, which was allotted to the petitioner by granting license is the room measuring 12.6” X 12.6” in between the Regional Manager’s Office and the Bus Station at Anantapur, @ Rs.5,116/- per month. Even as per the terms of the agreement entered into, the petitioner is not entitled to put up any structures without written permission from the respondent. Even putting structures by encroaching on both sides and front itself is unauthorized and illegal. In view of granting license for the specified area by fixing license fees, the petitioner is not entitled to seek allotment of any other area, which is not notified. Very extending the area on both sides and front itself is per se illegal and unauthorized. In any event, when the respondent was taking steps for termination, she filed Writ Petition No.5123 of 2008, in which, this Court passed orders that no termination shall be effected and permitted the respondent to charge additional license fee for the space occupied by the petitioner unauthorizedly. As per proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, additional area occupied by the petitioner is as follows: a) South side 12’.6” x 13’.0” = 162.50 sft b) North side 12’.6” x 8’.0” = 100.00 sft c) Front side 31’.6” x11’.0” = 368.50 sft ____________ 631.00 sft _____________ Stating that the petitioner has to pay additional license fee double to the normal fee, the respondent issued aforesaid proceedings, dated 15.04.2008 asking her to pay additional license fee of Rs.41,318/- per month in addition to the license fee of Rs.5,116/-. Although it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the area occupied by the petitioner is not that much area which is mentioned in proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, in these Writ Petitions, it is not possible for this Court to accept the plea of the petitioner that she merely encroached the space to an extent of 5 feet in front side and 4 feet on northern and southern sides. When the very extension of the structures by the petitioner itself is without any authority of law, contrary to the terms and without any written permission from the authorities, it can be said that the same is illegal and in any event, in proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, the authorities of the respondent Corporation categorically specified the measurements of the area additionally occupied by the petitioner, as such, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground for grant of relief to the petitioner as prayed for in both these Writ Petitions. In that view of the matter, both these Writ Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. However, it is made clear that if the area, which is in occupation of the petitioner, is less than the area mentioned in proceedings, dated 15.04.2008, it is open to the petitioner to submit a representation by specifying the area, which is additionally occupied by her, for the purpose of charging additional license fee. If any such representation is filed, this order will not preclude the respondent to examine the same for charging additional license fee for the area, which is occupied by the petitioner on southern, northern and front sides of the room allotted to her. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 3rd NOVEMBER, 2011. kvni