IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 22362 of 2004 Between: V.Samba Subba Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.5-52-35, 6/15, Bradipet, Guntur-2. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur. .....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 order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.02/122(55)/2003-RM/GNT, dt.25-11-2004 terminating the licence for cycle stand-1, in NTR Bus Station, Guntur and further forfeiting the security deposit as illegal, arbitrary and unjust and violative of Art.14 and 21 of Constitution of India, set aside the same and direct the respondents either to permit the petitioner to run the cycle stand until the security deposit to adjusted or to refund the balance of security deposit and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.MANMADHA REDDY The Court made the following Order: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.22362 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is impugning the proceedings of second respondent dated 25.11.2004 whereby and whereunder licence of the petitioner to run cycle stand-1 was terminated and security deposit was forfeited after adjusting outstanding dues. The petitioner was also informed that necessary legal action will be taken for collection of diﬀerential balance amount which falls short of the amount equivalent to stipulated period of licence from the date of closure of cycle stand-1 to 17.06.2007. The petitioner was issued licence for running cycle stand- 1 in NTR bus stand duly executing deed of licence on 21.08.2004. The licence was for a period from 18.06.2003 to 17.06.2006 and the petitioner allegedly paid Rs.2,96,100/- towards licence fee and security deposit. Be it noted as per conditions of licence deed the petitioner has to pay Rs.42,300/- for a period of four years subject enhancement of licence fee 10% in third year and 15% in fourth year. It appears the petitioner was ill due to allergic bronchitis and therefore, he could not pay the licence fee. He allegedly submitted representation on 18.06.2004 requesting ﬁrst respondent to permit him to stop business and to refund security deposit, on health grounds. The same was rejected by referring to clause 5 of deed of licence. The petitioner filed W.P.No.18851 of 2004 seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to vacate the premises and to refund the security deposit. The same was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn on 18.07.2007. In the meanwhile second respondent has issued show cause notice dated 30.10.2004 and the petitioner did not submit any explanation. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.11.2004 was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that representation was made by the petitioner on 09.11.2004 to the show cause notice dated 30.10.2004 and without considering the same, the impugned order was passed. He also submits that the petitioner is very much willing now to run the business in case the respondents do not accept the proposal requested by him earlier. This Court heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for APSRTC appearing for the respondents. There is no dispute that the licence to run the business is governed by conditions of licence deed. A perusal of impugned order would show that as per clause 7(a) of deed of licence, if licensee defaults in payment of licence fee for three months consecutively or three months in a calender year, the licence can be terminated duly forfeiting the security deposit. There is no challenge to the conditions of licence deed. Therefore the petitioner cannot have any right to enforce that there is duty on the part of the respondents to refund security deposit. Admittedly the petitioner suﬀered ill health and he himself requested to withdraw the licence. In such a case clause 7(a) of licence deed clearly applies. The writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10th November, 2008 GHN To 1 The Regional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Guntur. 3 2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JA}