THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION NO.28966 OF 2011 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking to issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in trying to forcibly dispossess the writ petitioners from the business premises No.40, Peta, Near Children Park, Kurnool even though licence period is still subsisting as illegal and void. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are doing business on the road margin near Children Park, Kurnool from the year 1995. They were doing business of selling Ice-creams, Fast Foods, Fruit chats and Chat Bandar etc., by obtaining licence from the 1st respondent. Every year, the 1st respondent is collecting licence fee from all the petitioners in the month of February. On 18-10-2011, the officials of the respondent corporation intimated the petitioners to remove stalls immediately. The petitioners shown licence fee paid to the Corporation which is subsisting till March, 2012. When the licence is subsisting till March, 2012, the 1st respondent cannot evict them from the place of their doing business high-handedly and no notice was issued to anybody till today. Hence, the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the petitioners are doing business of selling Ice-creams, Fast Foods, Fruit chats and Chat Bandar etc., from the year 1995 onwards, that if they are dispossessed, they will loose their livelihood and hence, he prays to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents contended that since the petitioners are in un-authorized occupation of the road margin by encroaching it, no notice is required under Section 405 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. He relied on a decision reported i n MOHD MISKINAVELLI AND OTHERS V VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION [1], wherein it was held thus: “So, payment of electricity charges by the petitioners, per se does not create right in them to continue the encroachments on the road. Since some of the petitioners have paid encroachment fee, it means that they have acknowledged that they are encroachers. The payment of licence fees only gives a licence to continue the encroachment till the expiry of the period for which the licence fees was paid. After expiry of that period they would be encroachers and cease to the licensees.” 5. As seen from the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioners said to be doing certain business on the road margin since a long time. From the above decision, it is clear that the Commissioner has got power under Section 405 of the Act to remove the obstruction or pull down any structures, which were erected on the road margin encroaching into the site. Therefore, question of issuing notice does not arise. But, considering the fact that the petitioners are doing business from the year 1995 and they are paying licence fee every year to the Municipality, a reasonable time can be afforded to the petitioners so that they can make alternate arrangement to run their respective business. It is not in dispute that the petitioners paid licence fee to the Municipality, which is valid up to 31-03-2012. Therefore, the petitioners are granted time till 31-03-2012 to vacate the business premise No.40, Peta, Near Children Park, Kurnool. If, for any reason, the petitioners fail to remove the encroachments, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool (1st respondent) is at liberty to remove the encroachments. 6. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 31-10-2011 Hsd [1] 2003 (2) ALD 541