THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.30294 OF 2011 ORDER: 1. This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings issued in Lr.No.756/BPP/HMDA/2010 dated 10.10.2011, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The facts of the case are as under. The petitioner company is dealing with several contract works and also running amusement activities at NTR Gardens by paying license fees to the first respondent herein. The third respondent issued tender notice dated 23.08.2010 in respect of running Machantree at NTR Gardens calling upon the sealed tenders to be submitted on 02.09.2010. The upset price fixed per year was Rs.25,00,000/- and the petitioner submitted tender as highest bidder for Rs.28,19,988/-. The said parking lot was auctioned in his favour for a period of three years w.e.f. 17.10.2010. The petitioner signed on the contract agreement and paid four months license fees including EMD and one month advance license fees in the form of demand draft and also issued 11 post dated cheques towards payment of monthly license fees. When the petitioner tried to take trail run, the sliding boats are strucking in the middle of the sliding tunnel and visitors are getting panic, as the condition is unsafe to start the activity. There was no minimum maintenance of the machantree from the beginning and the said activity was stopped several months back due to unsafe condition. In spite of making several representations to the respondents, repairs have not been carried out to make machantree as technically fit to operate. The petitioner is entitled to commence the activity from 17.10.2010 but he has not started, as there was no minimum maintenance of the machantree. The respondents issued a show cause notice vide proceedings dated 23.09.2011 served on the petitioner on 27.09.2011, wherein, he was called upon to show cause as to why the license for running machantree activity be cancelled and granted seven days time for explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 03.10.2011 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice that there was no minimum maintenace of the machantree. The second respondent issued proceedings dated 10.10.2011 dispatched by them on 28.10.2011 and served on the petitioner on 29.10.2011, wherein the license of the petitioner for running the machantree activity at NTR Gardens was cancelled. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the machantree activity could not be commenced because one day before the inauguration of the activity, the previous licensee came and took away the sliding boards, rope and motor and he was claiming other materials also without which the activity cannot be started. That apart, when the petitioner tried to take trial run, the sliding boats are strucking in the middle of the sliding tunnel and visitors are getting panic. as the condition was unsafe to start the activity and no minimum maintenance of the machantree from the beginning. Therefore, number of representations were given to the respondents. Without giving safe possession and without adverting to the explanation given by the petitioner, the impugned order is passed. Therefore, the petitioner prays to set aside the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in North Bihar Agency v. State of Bihar[1], wherein it is held that, “if, as explained by the appellants in their reply dated December 17, 1979, the said licence had been deposited in the office of the Civil Surgeon for renewal, how could it be produced. It shows non-application of mind by the appellate authority to the explanation furnished and there is nothing to indicate that the explanation was false.” 4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the respondents may be directed to consider the issue with reference to the explanation given by the petitioner. 5. The petitioner participated in the auction and became highest bidder. In pursuance of that, agreement was also entered into by depositing necessary amounts and the licence is for a period of three years. It is the case of the petitioner that the activity of machantree could not be commenced due to unsafe condition and as there was no minimum maintenance from the beginning. For that, the petitioner had made several representations. When the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, he gave explanation. Without adverting to the explanation, the impugned order was passed. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind by the authorities. The petitioner is entitled to know for what reason his license is cancelled. When it is the specific case of petitioner that possession of parking lot is not delivered, there is no finding or reason given by authority in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner by giving reasons. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 16th November 2011 RRB7 [1] (1981) 3 SCC 131