IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2637 OF 2010 Between: P.Chotu ..... PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 2637 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner was granted a licence by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation to run a Fancy stall at Plot No.59 within the premises of Valmikipuram bus station of Chittoor District and accordingly an agreement dated 09.02.2009 was executed in favour of the petitioner. The period of licence is 5 years from 16.02.2009 to 15.02.2014. While so, the petitioner made a representation dated 19.01.2009 requesting the respondents-Corporation to permit him to run a Fruit Juice stall also in the said plot during the rest of the licence period. While the petitioner’s application was pending, the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 30.09.2009, called upon the petitioner to clear the arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.13,885/-. In the said proceedings the business being carried on by the petitioner at plot No.59 was described as “Fruit and Fruit Juice Stall”. The petitioner states that the entire arrears have been cleared within the time granted and he has been carrying on the sale of fruit & fruit juices also in his stall. However, on 11.01.2010 the 3rd respondent issued a corrigendum to his earlier notice dated 30.09.2009 stating that in the said notice it was erroneously mentioned as fruit & fruit justice stall and the same be read as Fancy stall. Immediately thereafter the impugned order dated 02.02.2010 came to be passed alleging that the petitioner was running un-authorised business in the stall, and accordingly imposing a fine of Rs.500/- The petitioner was also advised to do authorised business only in his stall failing which the contract would be terminated. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. As could be seen from the material on record, the petitioner made a representation long back on 19.01.2009, requesting the Corporation to permit him to carry on the sale of Fruit and Fruit Juice also in his stall. The said representation is still pending with the Corporation. In the circumstances, the respondents were not justified in issuing the impugned order imposing penalty, particularly without any prior notice. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 19.01.2009 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 02.02.2010. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 15.02.2010 Ivd