IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9328 of 2004 Between: 1 N.Seshaiah S/o Hanumaiah Vijayawada, Krishna Dist 2 Smt. N.Anjamma W/o Seshaiah Vijayawada, Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, rep.byits Managing Director 2 The Regional Manager, Krishna Region APSRTC, Vijayawada, Krishna District 3 TheDivisional Manager Krishna Division, APSRTC, Vijayawada 4 The Personnel Officer Krishna Region APSRTC, Vijayawada, Krishna District ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in No.01/437/(6)/2004-RM-(K) dt. 28/204/2004 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of Natural Justice, without jurisdiction and in violation of Arts. 14 and 19(1) (g) of the constitution and consequently set aside the said proceedings No.01/437/(6)/2004-RM-(K) dt. 28/04/2004 issued by the 4th respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondents: C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 9329 of 2004 Between: 1 U.Prasad S/o Subba Rao Vijayawada, Krishna Dist 2 Y.Anjaiah S/o Rattaiah Vijayawada, Krishna Dist 3 S.Mani Kumar S/o Raja Rao Swargapuri Road, Krishnalanaka, Vijayawada, Krishna Dist ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad, rep.by its Managing Director 2 The Regional Manager, Krishna Region APSRTC, Viajayawada, Krishna District 3 The Divisional Mangaer Krishna Divisiona, APSRTC, Vijayawada 4 The Personnel Officer, Krishna Region APSRTC,. Vijayawada, Krishna Dist ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of "Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in No.01/437(6)/2004-RM(K) dt. 28/04/2004 issued by the 4th respondent as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice, without jurisdiction and in violation of Arts. 14 and 19(1) (g) of the constitution and consequently set aside the said Proceedings No.01/437(6)/2004-RM-(K) dt. 28/04/2004 issued by the 4th respondent Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.SRINIVASULU KURRA Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.C.PRAKASH REDDY (SC FOR A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION Nos.9328 AND 9329 OF 2004 ORDER: The two petitioners are licencees of stalls in Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada. The petitioners are engaged in various businesses like fruit juices, sale of electronic goods and toys, newspapers etc. they were required to pay monthly licence fee as tendered and accepted by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) authorities. In April, 2004, fourth respondent issued notice. In sum and substance, petitioners were asked to pay licence fee in respect of excess area allegedly occupied by petitioners. Petitioners deny any such occupation and assert that after taking possession of the respective shops, they are doing business in the shops allotted to them occupying the area in the shop. Counter aﬃdavit is ﬁled inter alia stating that when the dispute was raised by petitioners as to whether they are in occupation of excess area, a committee was appointed, that such committee after conducting inspection and enquiry found that petitioners encroached area over and above area allotted to them and therefore, they are liable to pay licence fee for the excess area. This Court has heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel for APSRTC. There is no dispute that lease/licence period of petitioners expired and it was not extended. The only question that remains is whether for the period and during which the licence was in force the petitioners were liable to pay any amount for allegedly occupying excess area. There cannot be any dispute that if the petitioners in fact are in occupation of excess area, they are certainly liable to pay excess licence fee. But, petitioners denied that they are in occupation of excess area. Respondents cannot rely on report of the committee for the reason that the committee did nto give any notice or opportunity to petitioners to submit their explanation. Therefore, impugned orders cannot be enforced. Similar view is also taken by this Court in an unreported Judgment in V.Dhana Rukhmini v APSRTC (W.P.No.9292 of 2004, dated 13.08.2004). In the result, for the above reasons, the writ petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders. However, this Court does not preclude respondents from issuing notice to petitioners, conducting enquiry in their presence and making a demand for payment of excess licence fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) 31.10.2008. pln