THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA W.P. No. 1181 of 2010 O r d e r: The petitioner states that his father by name K. Sehaiah Chetty, was granted hawkers licence by the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, in the year 1956, to sell bangles, dollars etc., by carrying baskets on the head, at the choultries and cottages located on Tirumala, and that it was renewed from time to time. While so, pursuant to the resolution by TTD Board, the petitioner states that his father was given permanent licence, to do the business, by sitting in the open space adjacent to the shed, erected from SNC Sub-Enquiry Office to Health Office, Tirumala. That as the said shed got gutted in a fire accident, the respondent constructed a new shed, in which his father was allotted shop No.1. The petitioner states that he has been assisting his father in his business and that his father executed settlement deed dated 24.01.1997, settling the shop in his favour, and that since then, he has been running the shop. That after the death of his father in the year 2003, he made representations to the respondent requesting to transfer the licence of the shop in his name. The respondent after conducting enquiry, and based on the outcome of the enquiry, TTD Board passed resolution dated 20.05.2007, for grant of licences to the legal heirs of the original licence holders. In pursuance thereof, the respondent issue proceedings 03.06.2007, to several legal heirs of the original licence holders, including the petitioner. Questioning the grant of licence in his favour, the petitioner states that one of his younger brother, with mala fide intention, to harass him, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 11893 of 2007, which was later dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 11.09.2007. The petitioner states that thereafter, he made several representations, requesting the respondent to give effect to the order dated 03.06.2007, but no action thereon had been taken. Hence the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The respondent filed counter stating that the petitioner’s father was not granted any permanent licence. He was granted only hawker’s licence initially for a period of one year, which thereafter, was renewed from time to time, which he held till the time of his death. The petitioner is one of the legal heirs of the original licence holder, and one of the brothers of the petitioner, got issued legal notice against transferring the licence in the name of the petitioner. As per the TTD Board resolution dated 20.05.2007, the petitioner, who is seeking transfer of licence in his name, has to produce certain documents, which he failed to produce. Therefore, the respondent did not issue the licence. He denied the contention that his request for transfer of licence in his name has been approved by the respondent and that he has also prepared proceedings dated 03.06.2007. Hence, he prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. The contention of petitioner that the respondent prepared proceedings dated 03.06.2007 for transfer of the licence in his name, but because one of his younger brother filed writ petition, the respondent withheld the issuance of the proceedings, and now that his brother had withdrawn the writ petition, the respondent should be directed to give effect to the licence dated 03.06.2007, cannot be accepted, because this contention of the petitioner is specifically denied by the respondent. As can be seen from the stand taken in the counter, it is the specific case of the respondent that as per TTD Board resolution dated 20.05.2007, the persons seeking transfer of licences in their names, should produce the following documents: 1. Original licence issued to the deceased person. 2. Latest renewal orders in favour of the deceased. 3. Death Certificate of the original licensee. 4. List of family members certificate issued by the competent authority. 5. No Objection Certificate in the form of notary from other family members. 6. Residence proof certificate for the past 15 years issued by the MRO/Voter Identity Card. 7. Affidavit to the effect that the applicant would bind over the Rules and Regulations of TTD. The petitioner, admittedly, did not produce the afore-mentioned documents, to enable the respondent, to consider his case for transfer of the licence in his name. As the petitioner did not produce the afore- mentioned documents, the respondent states that he did not approve the transfer of licence in his favour. In fact, the respondent denied the preparation of the proceedings dated 03.06.2007. May be, the petitioner’s brother had withdrawn the writ petition filed by him questioning the alleged preparation of proceedings dated 03.06.3007 transferring the licence in the name of the petitioner, but that by itself, cannot be a ground to direct the respondent to give effect to the proceedings dated 03.06.2007, particularly when the respondent denied preparing the same, and when it is the specific case of the respondent that the petitioner failed to produce certain documents, which he is required to produce as per the TTD Board resolution dated 20.05.2007. Since the TTD Board resolution requires production of certain documents, as referred to above, the petitioner who is seeking transfer of the licence, is bound to produce the same, and since the respondent has taken a stand in the counter that if the petitioner produces the documents as required by TTD Board resolution dated 20.05.2007, they would consider his case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: If the petitioner produces the documents, as required by the TTD Board resolution dated 20.05.2007, as referred to above in the body of this order, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 4th August, 2010 KSR