ORDER Transport Commissioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, is present in the Court in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 12.10.2011. 2. The writ petitioners-appellants are aggrieved against the order dated 07.11.2003 by which the writ petition of the petitioners had been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the writ petition, the petitioners had challenged the order dated 03.05.2003 by which the allotment of shops in favour of the writ petitioners had been cancelled. 3. It appears from the facts pleaded by the writ petitioners themselves that by annexure-1 dated 17.4.2002, canteens were allotted to the writ petitioners with the clear condition that the allotment is only for one year and that too, on temporary basis and the Management may evict the writ petitioners from the shops even without notice. The rent was fixed as Rs. 3500/-obviously per month and the writ petitioners were directed to deposit Rs. 42,000/-as advance rent for one year. The said allotment was sought to be cancelled by the impugned order dated 03.05.2003, which had been challenged by the writ petitioners and the learned Single Judge held that it is a matter of contract between the parties terminable at any time without notice and as the said contract is not a statutory contract, no right could have been enforced under writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners preferred this L.P.A. and on 16.8.2011 it was found from the documents placed on record by the writ petitioners-appellants that even in the year 2003, it was found that the persons, like the petitioners and others, are in illegal occupation of the shops and according to the appellants themselves, the persons, who are occupying such shops and already defaulted to the tune of more than Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- approx., are not sought to be evicted by the Transport Department, may it be the Transport Department of the then State of Bihar before creation of the State of Jharkhand, whereas the petitioners were sought to be evicted, who were regularly paying the rent and whose rent was accepted by the respondent -Transport Department itself and on 07.09.2011 again a detailed order was passed by this Court indicating that the amount of Rs. 10-15 lacs have been defaulted by such occupiers and some have even sub-let the premises, yet no action has been taken even after such serious view expressed by this Court. When the Department did not act, this Court passed another order on 12.10.2011 observing that in such matters the stand of the Department is only of shifting the burden from one to another and the Transport Commissioner is not taking action except writing letters but without taking a follow-up action. The Transport Commissioner was directed to remain present in Court, in pursuance of which he is present in Court today. 4. Before appearing in this Court today, a show-cause has been submitted and learned counsel appearing for the Transport Commissioner submitted that now action has been taken and except two shops, all shops have been locked. Two shops have not been locked in view of the fact that in one of the matters, there is an order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1548 of 2001, which has been upheld by the Division Bench by the order dated 01.08.2001 in L.P.A. No. 394 of 2001 and another matter being W.P.(C) No.5810 of 2007 has been decided by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2008. 5. The above illegal occupants have been removed yesterday only by putting a lock over their shops and some other encroachments have also been removed. However, we are not concerned with those encroachments. 6. It is not the case of the Department today also that the allotment was renewed in favour of the petitioners-appellants at any point of time. It is not in dispute that the shops-owners, who have been evicted, have already defaulted long back. It has come on record even in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents themselves that some of the persons, to whom the shops were allotted, had already left the shops and handed over its possession to other persons. It is not in dispute that in view of the documents placed on record by the writ petitioners themselves, those shops were not let out so as to create tenancy in favour of the occupants. The allotment was for a fixed period and default is not in dispute. Therefore, in that fact situation, evacuees had no right to resist against the eviction from the public authorities in a case of allotment and licence for a fixed period. The allotment was for a fixed period and default is not in dispute. Therefore, in that fact situation, evacuees had no right to resist against the eviction from the public authorities in a case of allotment and licence for a fixed period. It is also a settled law that mere periodical payment of even in the name of rent does not create tenancy in favour of the payee, unless there is an express contract to let out the premises. This principle applies with more rigour in the matter where the property is a public property which can be dealt with by the officers of the Government, Corporation and the Department only within the framework of the statutory provisions and rules and contrary to the rules, no tenancy can be created by implication or assurance, nor a plea of estoppel can create tenancy and even mentioning of certain words, "rent or tenancy" in the document is irrelevant. Tenancy must be supported by an order passed by the competent authority only, without which no case of tenancy can be inferred. The right of licencee or alottee depends upon the terms and conditions of the licence and the allotment letter and the order by which the property has been given for use by another persons. 7. We have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners-appellants are not tenants and therefore, they have no right to remain in possession against the wishes of the Transport Department. 8. It appears from the reasons given in the order passed in W.P.(C). No. 5810 of 2007 dated 14.01.2008 that none of the issues has been decided by the said Judgment except observing that the piece of land was allotted to the writ petitioner of that writ petition and defence was taken that it was a settlement of that premises only for one year in favour of the writ petitioner and there was no renewal and the Court straightway observed that the petitioner has been continuing in the premises for more than ten years and rent had admittedly been accepted by the respondent-Transport Department up-to December, 2007 in a case where the allotment was made in the year 1997. Before the learned Single Judge, it was not argued that it was not a case of tenancy so as to create any right in favour of the person occupying the premises. Before the learned Single Judge, it was not argued that it was not a case of tenancy so as to create any right in favour of the person occupying the premises. Therefore, in view of the reasons given above, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment delivered in the case of Bhola Nath Tiwary Vrs. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna & Ors., W.P.(C) No.5810 of 2007, is not laying down that mere payment of certain amounts, even periodically, in a case where there is a document of allotment of the premises, results into creation of tenancy so as to create a right in the premises of the occupant. A Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 394 of 2001, wherein the order dated 19.4.2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1548 of 2001 was challenged, observed that if the writ petitioner-respondent has been a defaulter in the past or if he commits any default in the payment of rent for any month in future, the appellant-Transport Department will be entitled to evict the writ petitioners from the shop in question forthwith and immediately. Therefore, the Division Bench also has not decided any issue, which we have discussed above. 9. By the order dated 19.4.2001, the writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 1548 of 2001, was, in fact, disposed of without deciding any issue of law and it has been observed that the petitioner shall deposit all the admitted rent of the shop, in question, within one month from the date of the order and shall go on depositing the annual rent within the time, in terms of the agreement, failing which the settlement, made in favour of the petitioner, shall stand cancelled. Therefore, we do not think that the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellants has any bearing on the point and the appellants have no right to continue in the suit premises. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any just reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. As such, this appeal is dismissed. 10. We may observe here that the Transport Department has not acted in the manner in which it should have acted and has caused serious loss to the State exchequer in allowing the illegal occupants to continue in occupation for such a long period. As such, this appeal is dismissed. 10. We may observe here that the Transport Department has not acted in the manner in which it should have acted and has caused serious loss to the State exchequer in allowing the illegal occupants to continue in occupation for such a long period. Today also we have not been shown any policy of the Transport Department in the matter of allotment of any land or shop for the benefit of the tourists who may need some facility in the Bus-stand. We are also not sure whether the said Department, after evicting those occupants, wants to reallot the shops and canteens to any other persons. The Transport Department need to take a decision and after taking a decision, if they decide to reallot and make these shops available to the applicants, then priority is required to be given to the persons who were in occupation as has been suggested by the Transport Commissioner but it must be on a reasonable and fair rent so as not to cause any loss to the State exchequer in the matter where the appellants will also be getting benefit of continuation of their business for their earnings. Therefore, the Transport Department will be free to frame a policy and thereafter, take a decision in accordance with the policy and shall try to take a proper decision so as to give benefit to the passengers who come to the Bus-stand and shall not think only to oblige the traders and after taking a decision, they may reallot the premises according to the policy for which we are not giving any other guidelines as it is for the Transport Department itself to take a decision. Since the shops presently have been sealed, the shops shall not be alloted to any other persons till the decision is taken by the Transport Department and after taking decision only, the respondent Department may proceed in accordance with law. Such decision may be taken preferably within a period of two months so as to avoid any inconvenience to the occupants, if they are found to be entitled to reallotment of the land on any enhanced rent. 11. We are making it clear that we are not observing that the shops should be kept as they are. Such decision may be taken preferably within a period of two months so as to avoid any inconvenience to the occupants, if they are found to be entitled to reallotment of the land on any enhanced rent. 11. We are making it clear that we are not observing that the shops should be kept as they are. If, as per the decision of the Transport Department, shops are required to be demolished so as to construct new shops of standard size befitting to the present level of standard of the public, then these shops may be constructed of reasonable size but not of unreasonable size and thereafter they may proceed to take a decision for allotment to those very persons or to other persons according to their policy decisions. In case, the Department takes a decision to demolish the shops, the appellants shall be given liberty to take their belongings without causing any damage to the property of any person.