JUDGMENT 1. The present writ petition has been preferred mainly for the reasons that the petitioner was allotted land Municipal Survey Plot No. 1640, Ward No. I1, measuring 2800 sq. ft., situated nearby Ranchi Lake, Ranchi on licence basis for the payment of the rent at the rate referred to in the agreement Clause2. There is also Clause9 for renewal of the licence and therefore, application for renewal of the licence was preferred. Thereafter, a show cause notice was given for cancellation of the licence and ultimately, an order was passed at Annexure19, by the respondents dated 10th November, 2008 whereby, it has been ordered that the petitioner should remove all his structures and should hand over the key of the aforesaid premises to Ranchi Municipal Corporation and against this order at Annexure19, the present petition has been preferred. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case, in detail, and has pointed out that the petitioner had applied for grant of the land, pursuant to an order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3591 of 2006 dated 22nd August, 2006 (Annexure2 to the memo of the petition). Thereafter, the land bearing Municipal Survey No. 1640, Ward No. II measuring 2800 sq.ft. situated near Ranchi Lake, was given to the petitioner description whereof, has been given as per 'Schedule' to the agreement (Annexure3 to the memo of the petition) and an agreement was entered into on 12th December, 2006 between the petitioner and Ranchi Municipal Corporation. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that relevant clauses of the agreement at Annexure3, are Clause Nos. 9 and 10, which read as under: "9. That subject to the fulfillment of the conditions as embodied herein above the licence may be renewed by the licenser for a further period of one year only on such terms and conditions as may be license in favour of licensee till the licensee does not violate terms and conditions of the licence. 10. That the licensee will develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification as per plan SK1 (Boating)SK 4 & 5 (Banquet/Restaurant) and SK 7 (Garden & Children Park) at their cost and in accordance with the DPR plan of RMC vide report dated 15/4/2003 and will service tax rules and will be responsible for the same. 10. That the licensee will develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification as per plan SK1 (Boating)SK 4 & 5 (Banquet/Restaurant) and SK 7 (Garden & Children Park) at their cost and in accordance with the DPR plan of RMC vide report dated 15/4/2003 and will service tax rules and will be responsible for the same. It will be continued to renew every year." (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the aforesaid Clauses, the petitioner developed and maintained the adjacent site for beautification, as per plan S.K.I (Boating Ramp), S.K.4 (Banquet Hall), S.K.5 (Restaurant) and S.K.7 (Garden and Children Park). All these constructions have been constructed at the cost of the petitioner and sizeable amount to the tune of approximately fifty lakhs have been invested, by now, and consequently, the whole nearby area has been developed at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for renewal of the licence and for no justifiable reasons, renewal of licence has been denied on the ground that there are some violations of the Clauses of the agreement and an order has been passed at Annexure19, to the effect that the explanation given to the show cause notice is not up to the mark of satisfaction and there are violations of the conditions of the licence, as per Annexure19. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reasons given in the impugned order at Annexure19 are absolutely wrong, vague and arbitrary. Which conditions are violated that is not at all, referred in the impugned order. In fact, the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions of the licence. The order passed at Annexure19 is a non speaking order. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that again, a letter was written dated 14th November, 2008 at Annexure20 and detailed explanation was given. Similarly, further letter was written on 4th June, 2009 by the petitioner, which is at Annexure22 and again, detailed explanation has been given. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that again, a letter was written dated 14th November, 2008 at Annexure20 and detailed explanation was given. Similarly, further letter was written on 4th June, 2009 by the petitioner, which is at Annexure22 and again, detailed explanation has been given. The show cause notice, which was been given on 19th December, 2007 at Annexure16, though has been replied, in detail, no detailed order has been passed by the respondents, at all, deciding the show cause notice and now, the respondents have sealed the premises of the present petitioner and again, a notice was given on 6th March, 2010, which is annexed with the interlocutory application, preferred by the petitioner in I.A. No. 1092 of 2010. Petitioner has invested sizeable amount. Looking to the aforesaid Clauses especially Clause No. 10 of the agreement, the licensee i.e. the petitioner has to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification and therefore, the petitioner has developed the adjacent site also and to protect the adjacent site, all bare minimum precautions, which are required to be taken has taken by putting a small fence so that the cattle may not destroy the beautification of the licensee land. So far as the boating is concerned, it is also permitted as per Clause10 and plan S.K.1. Despite this permission, a show cause notice was given that why the petitioner is doing preparation for boating etc. So far as the encroachment is concerned, the petitioner has not encroached any land whatsoever, Clause 10 has been lost sight of, by the concerned respondent authorities. Adjacent site has to be developed and maintained by the petitioner and the petitioner has tried to comply with these conditions otherwise, the petitioner has not violated any of the conditions and so called violation has properly explained to the respondents. If Clause 10 is properly read, there is no encroachment by the petitioner, at all. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to demolish any of the constructions, which is pointed out by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, which is not permitted as per the licence and sanctioned plan. Likewise, the petitioner is also ready and willing to hand over the adjacent site, which has been developed by the petitioner, as per Clause 10. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to demolish any of the constructions, which is pointed out by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, which is not permitted as per the licence and sanctioned plan. Likewise, the petitioner is also ready and willing to hand over the adjacent site, which has been developed by the petitioner, as per Clause 10. Let the respondents take the responsibility to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification though, it was given to the petitioner, as per Clause10 to the licence. The petitioner is unnecessarily incurring expenses for beautification and development of adjacent land in fulfillment of the conditions, imposed under Clause 10. Compliance of Clause 10, has been treated as encroachment. The petitioner has no objection if this liability is removed from the petitioner's side. So far as the payment of the licence fee is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the licence fee is payable, as per the Clause2 of the agreement. Clause 2 of the agreement reads as under: "2. That the licensee shall pay licence fee for the period of the licence as mentioned hereinabove calculate @ Rs. 5/ per sq. feet monthly which shall be payable per month by license from the date of completion of project after due approval of Plan, till continuance of licence. " (Emphasis Supplied) Thus, in view of the aforesaid Clause2, the amount of the licence fee was payable from the date of the completion of the project after due approval of the plan, till the continuation of the licence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit whatever the amount the respondents are suggesting within 48 hours, but, the fact remains that there is no violation of Clause2 by the petitioner because the respondents have not intimated the date of the completion of the project, after the due approval of the plan. This date is not at all, informed to the petitioner by the respondents. Nonetheless, the amount, which is reflected in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents especially in paragraph 5 thereof, that sum of Rs. 3,36,000/ is due from the petitioner. Under protest, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit this amount to the respondents. This date is not at all, informed to the petitioner by the respondents. Nonetheless, the amount, which is reflected in the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents especially in paragraph 5 thereof, that sum of Rs. 3,36,000/ is due from the petitioner. Under protest, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit this amount to the respondents. The respondents have not given any completion certificate and therefore, as per Clause2, the amount was not deposited otherwise, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit either before this Court or before the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, the aforesaid amount. Thus, the show cause notice, which was given dated 19th December, 2007 at Annexure16 is absolutely false and frivolous. The petitioner is not making any profit by charging Rs. 5.00 and Rs. 3.00 as entry fee, because, as per Clause10, the petitioner has to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification for protection, lighting, gardening, watering etc. sizeable amount is being invested by the petitioner and to meet with this cost only, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5.00 and Rs. 3.00 is taken as charge from major and minor persons, respectively as entry fee. If the respondents are taking away this liability, imposed upon the petitioner under Clause10, then there is no question of any charges whatsoever arises, henceforth and therefore, let the respondents be directed to decide the application for renewal of the licence by quashing the non speaking order, passed by the respondents at Annexure19 to the memo of the petition. Which clause is violated is not, at all, reflected in the impugned order. What is not up to the mark or to the satisfaction is not pointed out in the impugned order at Annexure19 to the memo of the petition. A lump sum and general order has been passed by the respondents at Annexure19. Whenever respondents are rejecting the application for renewal of licence, the reasons must have been assigned for non renewal of licence and exact violations of Clauses of the agreement should have been pointed out in the impugned order. Looking to the order at Annexure19, nothing is reflected in the impugned order and therefore, the order at Annexure19 is an arbitrary order and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Looking to the order at Annexure19, nothing is reflected in the impugned order and therefore, the order at Annexure19 is an arbitrary order and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that on the basis of the decision rendered by theSupreme Court in the case of D. Nataraja Mudaliar Vs. The State Transport Authority, Madras as reported in AIR 1979 SC114 in paragraph 8, that right of renewal is greater than right of grant of the licence because before renewal, there is sizeable investment and by investment, the petitioner change or alter its position, which creates estoppel by action, as per Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the term of agreement, which is atAnnexure3 has already been ended because the licence was given only for period of 11 months. The date of licence is 12th December, 2006. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 19th December, 2007 was given for boating etc. and as the petitioner was charging entry fees and as there was an encroachment by the petitioner, the notice was given and ultimately, show cause notice has been decided vide order at Annexure19 to the memo of the petition to the effect that there are breaches of the conditions of the licence and hence, the petitioner has to remove the structures and the possession of the property, in question, has to be handed over to Ranchi Municipal Corporation. Moreover, the licence fee is also not paid, as per the supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents and therefore also, the licence is not required to be renewed by the respondents. 5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, thereby, quash and set aside the order passed by Ranchi Municipal Corporation at Annexure19, to the memo of the petition dated 10th November, 2008, mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) The petitioner was given the land bearing Municipal Survey No. 1640, Ward No. II of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation situated near Ranchi Lake, measuring area of 2800 sq.ft. description whereof, is given in the 'Schedule' at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition and an agreement of licence was entered into between the parties on 12th December, 2006. description whereof, is given in the 'Schedule' at Annexure3 to the memo of the petition and an agreement of licence was entered into between the parties on 12th December, 2006. (ii) Relevant Clauses of the agreement are Clause nos. 2, 9 and 10, which are already incorporated in the earlier paragraphs. As per Clause10 of this agreement, the licensee i.e. the petitioner has to develop and maintain the adjacent site for beautification, as per plan S.K.I (Boating Ramp) and as per plan S.K.4 and S.K.5 (Banquet/ Restaurant) and as per plan S.K.7 (Garden and Children Park) at the cost of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner was given not only 2800 sq. ft. area for hotel, but, adjacent site for development and maintenance also, including for boating. Thus, alleged encroachment reflected in the show cause notice by the respondents appears to have been because of Clause10. Compliance of Clause 10, has been treated as encroachment by the respondents. (iii) It also appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner has to maintain the adjacent site, which is a garden and children park and therefore, some measures have been taken place at the behest of the petitioner to protect the beautification of the adjacent site. Beauty is to see and not to touch and therefore, the compound wall of hardly three feet was constructed and to meet with the maintenance expenses and not with a view to any profit, it appears that some amount was charged as entry fee. This aspect of the matter has been totally lost sight of while passing the impugned order at Annexure19 to the memo of the petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner is ready and willing to surrender the adjacent site, which is otherwise, never taken away by the petitioner and therefore, there is no question whatsoever arises, henceforth, for charging any fees for the entry. (iv) It appears from the show cause notice that some objections have been taken by the respondents Ranchi Municipal Corporation that the petitioner is preparing for boating etc., but, looking to Clause 10, boating is permissible. Even looking to plan S.K.1, which is at page no. 51 of the memo of the petition, details have been given for boating ramp. Thus, boating is permitted not only in Clause10, but also as per plan S.K.1 and therefore, the objections, so far boating is concerned, is correctly explained by the petitioner. Even looking to plan S.K.1, which is at page no. 51 of the memo of the petition, details have been given for boating ramp. Thus, boating is permitted not only in Clause10, but also as per plan S.K.1 and therefore, the objections, so far boating is concerned, is correctly explained by the petitioner. (v) So far as the payment of licence fees is concerned, looking to the aforesaid Clause2 of the agreement, it appears that the licence fee is payable from the date of completion of the project after due approval of the plan till continuance of the licence. It is admitted fact by both the parties that till today, no completion certificate of the project has ever been given by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner has not paid the licence fees. Nonetheless, it is undertaken by the petitioner, during course of his argument, that he is ready and willing to pay Rs. 3,36,000/ due from the petitioner, as per supplementary counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, either before this Court or before the respondents, on any day. (vi) Looking to Clause9 of the agreement, it appears that though period of licence is over, it can be renewed on such terms and conditions as may be agreed by the parties till the licensee does not violates the terms and conditions of the licence. Thus, the exact breach of terms and conditions of the licence ought to have been pointed out in the impugned order for non renewal of the licence. Looking to Annexure19 of the memo of the petition, dated 10th November, 2008, passed by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, it has been stated that the explanation of the show cause notice is not up to the mark or to the satisfaction and therefore, the same is dismissed and there are violations of the conditions of the licence agreement and therefore, within one week, from the date of the order at Annexure19, property must be vacated by the petitioner and peaceful possession has to be handed over to Ranchi Municipal Corporation. From this order, at Annexure19, it is not at all, clear which condition of licence agreement is violated and how. From this order, at Annexure19, it is not at all, clear which condition of licence agreement is violated and how. Even after this order also, detailed explanations have been given on 14th November, 2008 (Annexure20), dated 4th June, 2009 (Annexure 22) as well as detailed explanation dated 5th June, 2009 (Annexure23) by the petitioner and then also, no detailed speaking order has been passed and ultimately, a further consequential order dated 6th March, 2010 is passed which is annexed as Annexure24 to the interlocutory application no. 1092 of 2010 in this writ petition to the effect that within 24 hours, the property, in question, should be vacated and ultimately, the property, in question, has been sealed by the respondents. Thus, detailed explanation has been given, but, nothing has dealt with in the impugned order at Annexure19 to the memo of the petition by the respondents and Annexure19order is not pointing out that which condition is violated by the licensee. A general sentence has been written that there is breach of the conditions of the licence. Thus, order at Annexure19 is a non-speaking order and is an arbitrary order and hence, I hereby, quash and set aside the order at Annexure19 dated 10th November, 2008 passed by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation. 6. Accordingly, all the consequential orders passed upon Annexure19 like orders at Annexure-21 andAnnexure-24 passed by Ranchi Municipal Corporation dated 3rd June, 2009 and 6th March, 2010, respectively, which are annexed in the writ petition as well as in the interlocutory application no. 1092 of 2010, are also hereby, quashed and set aside and afresh decision will be taken by the respondents, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law, and after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative. 7. Looking to the willingness shown by the petitioner in the open Court that if the respondents want to takeaway the adjacent site, which otherwise was given under Clause10 of the licence agreement, then, the petitioner has no objection and therefore, Ranchi Municipal Corporation will decide whether they want to take away the adjacent site or not, so that liability, which is imposed upon the petitioner licensee under Clause10 will come to an end. However, liberty is reserved with the petitioner to make claim of the amount, which the petitioner has invested, from the respondents, in accordance with law. 8. I hereby, direct: (a) the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5,04,000/ with Ranchi Municipal Corporation, within a period of one week, from the date of receipt of copy of order of this Court towards licence fee, without prejudice to the rights of both the parties. (b) that the sealed applied by the Ranchi Municipal Corporation will be opened within 24 hours from the deposition of the aforesaid amount. (c) that the petitioner shall not charge the entry fees, which they are charging of Rs. 5.00 from the major and Rs. 3.00 from minor persons, till the new agreement and their clauses are being settled between the parties. (d) the Ranchi Municipal Corporation to decide the application, preferred by the petitioner for renewal of the licence, in accordance with law and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to his representative, as expeditiously as possible and practicable, preferably, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. .(e) the respondents to depute a responsible officer for physical checking at the aforesaid premises, so that if there is any violation of the aforesaid conditions, it will be pointed out by Ranchi Municipal Corporation, immediately for its further action. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. In view of the final disposal of the main writ petition, I.A. No.1092 of 2010 is also stands disposed of.