JUDGMENT : M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, questioning the action of the first respondent in issuing impugned notice vide File No. T.T.D. 81021(31)/166/2019-Rev.TML dated 28.01.2020, declare the same as illegal and contrary to the proceedings in Roc. No. Rev.1/1188/AEO (Rev) TML/2002 dated 02.02.2005 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the impugned proceedings vide File No. T.T.D. 81021(31)/166/2019-Rev.TML dated 28.01.2020. 2. On request of the petitioner vide letter dated 04.09.2005, the first respondent allotted sale point at Tirumala for sale of milk and milk products. The application submitted by the petitioner along with other diaries was placed before the Board of Trustees, T.T.D. for taking decision in the matter. The Board of Trustees passed Resolution No. 463 dated 21.12.2004, resolved to agree in principle to allot sale points on payment of royalty based on turn over of business of dairy. Pursuant to resolution, the first respondent accorded permission of sale point to the petitioner. As per the proceedings dated 02.02.2005, the turn over of milk and milk products quoted by the petitioner is 3000 ltrs of milk, 100 sachets of 200 ml butter milk, 10 boxes of doodpeda, 12 ltrs of ghee, 50 bottles of 200 ml sterilized flavoured milk, 12 ltrs of mango packets, tetra pack milk 12 ltrs, 100 bottles of water, sweet lassi, basundi. After being satisfied, the proposal of the petitioner was accepted in the meeting held by the Estate Officer, T.T.D. Tirumala on 29.01.2005 and the proceedings of the first respondent are placed on record with this petition for perusal of this Court. 3. After due enquiry, the first respondent in its proceedings dated 05.03.2005 allotted site measuring 10 x 10 temporarily on the Northern side of C.R.O. on payment of royalty for stock cum sale point. In continuation of proceedings dated 05.03.2005, the first respondent renewed the license for one year with effect from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2007. Thereafter, on consideration of representation of Managing Director of the petitioner dated 11.09.2009, the first respondent accorded permission to allot Shop Nos. 114 and 115. Accordingly, shops were allotted. The office of the first respondent issued proceedings dated 22.12.2009 vide Roc. No. Rev.1/427/ARO (Rev)/TRN/1/2005 dated 22.12.2009 allotting Shop Nos. 114 and 115. The two shops were allotted to the petitioner on payment @ Rs. 114 and 115. Accordingly, shops were allotted. The office of the first respondent issued proceedings dated 22.12.2009 vide Roc. No. Rev.1/427/ARO (Rev)/TRN/1/2005 dated 22.12.2009 allotting Shop Nos. 114 and 115. The two shops were allotted to the petitioner on payment @ Rs. 1,450/- per month, per shop, as a sale point on par with other shops at H.T. Complex with 10% hike on the rent for every financial year on usual terms and conditions in the annexure, apart from payment of Royalty. The copy of the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and its annexure is filed along with the petition. The proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and its annexure of the deed of license dated 17.02.2010 does not contain restriction on period of license/license tenure. 4. It is also contended that the first respondent issued the impugned proceedings, as if the petitioner was selling cool drinks and water bottles, in addition to Sangam Dairy products, and also without issuing any notice and affording an opportunity to rebut those allegations made against this petitioner in the impugned proceedings. The other allegation is that, some hawkers basket is in front portion of the shop. The representations submitted to Chairman, T.T.D. on 26.12.2018 and 16.02.2019 indicates that the shops are situated at H.T. Complex where the movement of pilgrims is very low. The petitioner is not able to serve large number of pilgrims and requested to re-locate the shop. It is also brought to the notice that peak period to sell the milk is in early hours and thereafter, as there is no movement of pilgrims at the place where the shops are situated and the allegation that there is basket in front of the shop is wholly improbable. With regard to sale of water bottles, in the resolution passed by the Board on 21.12.2004 itself, the petitioner was allowed to sell the water bottles. As such, the action of the respondents in terminating the license without giving opportunity is violative of principles of natural justice. 5. It is also contended that the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 or the deed of license dated 17.02.2010 does not contain restriction on period of license. But, the impugned proceedings were brought into existence purely due to political consideration at the instance of Chairman, T.T.D. Trust Board, ignoring the fact that Sangam Dairy is the business organization run on cooperative principles. 5. It is also contended that the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 or the deed of license dated 17.02.2010 does not contain restriction on period of license. But, the impugned proceedings were brought into existence purely due to political consideration at the instance of Chairman, T.T.D. Trust Board, ignoring the fact that Sangam Dairy is the business organization run on cooperative principles. Apart from that, deed of license dated 17.02.2010 also does not restrict the period of license. As long as the petitioner paid royalty and rent without any default, it is entitled to run the sale point. Therefore, termination of license of this petitioner for Shop Nos. 114 and 115 is illegal and contrary to the law and also to the terms and conditions of the license. 6. It is specifically asserted that, so far as Shop Nos. 114 and 115, the petitioner is in possession of those shop rooms. But, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not allowing this petitioner to sell dairy products to be transported to Tirumala. The respondents are contemplating to take steps to remove the amenities provided to the petitioner Shop Nos. 114 and 115 like power, water, etc and therefore, the petitioners sought relief as stated above. 7. The respondents did not file any counter. 8. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner Sri N. Subba Rao, contended that, termination of license on any of the grounds mentioned in the order impugned in the writ petition is wholly untenable, since the petitioner was permitted to sell water bottles also, as per the terms of license itself and resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of T.T.D. When such permission was granted in the license itself, termination of license of the petitioner by the respondents is illegal and contrary to the permission granted to the petitioner. 9. Yet, another contention raised before this Court is that, when a basket, if any, is kept in front of the shop by third parties, that is not attributable to the petitioner and hawkers alone are responsible for such action and the respondents can take action against those hawkers who kept the basket, if any. Even otherwise, keeping of basket in front of the shop is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the action of the respondents, terminating the license of this petitioner for Shop Nos. Even otherwise, keeping of basket in front of the shop is not supported by any evidence. Therefore, the action of the respondents, terminating the license of this petitioner for Shop Nos. 114 and 115 is illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice and terms and conditions of the license and consequently, requested to set-aside the same, while declaring the proceedings impugned in the writ petition as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice and sought to set-aside the same. 10. Sri N. Subba Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, while denying handing over of possession of shops by said S. Praveen Krishna, who is unconcerned with the business of this petitioner and that too, the person who is carrying on business is different than the person to whom possession of shops is handed over and he has drawn attention of this Court to letters addressed by this petitioner to the respondent for providing residential accommodation to the person who is running the business and working in Sangam Dairy, on payment of reasonable rent. One Mr. Pradeep is the authorized person, as per letter dated 16.02.2019 addressed to the Chairman, T.T.D. and the person who allegedly handed over the premises i.e. Shop Nos. 114 and 115 to the respondent is unconcerned with the business of this petitioner and when the possession was not handed over by this petitioner, based on the proceedings placed on record, it cannot be held that the petitioner suppressed any material fact, which disentitled him to claim discretionary relief and consequently, the principle laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, (2008) 12 SCC 481 has no relevance and requested to grant the relief claimed. 11. Whereas, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing the counsel on record for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, contended that, possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 was taken over by the respondents and placed on record a copy of the report dated 29.01.2020 to establish that, possession of Shop Nos. 11. Whereas, Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, representing the counsel on record for Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, contended that, possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 was taken over by the respondents and placed on record a copy of the report dated 29.01.2020 to establish that, possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 was handed over and the milk products available in the shops were handed over to one S. Praveen Krishna on 29.01.2020 itself and the possession was taken in the presence of two mediators and officials of T.T.D. When once possession was taken over by the respondents, it is the duty of the petitioner to disclose the same in the affidavit, but, nothing was disclosed and therefore, the petitioner is guilty of supressio vari and suggestio false and placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others (referred supra). 12. It is further contended that, for sale of water bottles, no license was granted and in the absence of any permission, sale of water bottles is contrary to the terms of license and therefore, cancellation of license of the petitioner is in accordance with law. At the same time, allowing hawkers basket to keep in front of the petitioner's shops to sell toys is a serious contravention of the terms and conditions of license and on this ground also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, while upholding that termination of license is in accordance with law and no notice is required to be issued before terminating the license and taking possession of the stalls. 13. Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: 1. Whether the petitioner suppressed any material fact to non-sue the petitioner and consequently, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of suppression of material fact? 2. Whether the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of license granted in favour of this petitioner by the respondent. If so, whether any notice is required to be issued before terminating such license either in terms and conditions of license or as per principles of natural justice. If so, whether the termination is legal and valid? POINT No. 1: 14. Whether the petitioner violated the terms and conditions of license granted in favour of this petitioner by the respondent. If so, whether any notice is required to be issued before terminating such license either in terms and conditions of license or as per principles of natural justice. If so, whether the termination is legal and valid? POINT No. 1: 14. One of the major contentions raised before this Court by Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel is that, in pursuance of the impugned proceedings, possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 at H.T. Shopping Complex were taken by the respondent vide report dated 29.01.2020. The impugned proceedings were passed on 28.01.2020, possession was allegedly taken on the next day itself i.e. on 29.01.2020, whereas, writ petition was filed on 03.02.2020 i.e. within a short period of alleged impugned proceedings. Even according to the proceedings, the Managing Director of the petitioner was directed to handover vacant possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 at H.T Shopping Complex, peacefully to T.T.D. by remitting the license fee and royalty immediately. It is not clear whether the order copy was served on the same date to the petitioner or not. But, possession was allegedly taken over on 29.01.2020 and the same is denied by the petitioner in the writ affidavit itself, while specifically asserting in Paragraph No. 6 that the petitioner is in possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115. However, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are not allowing the petitioner to transport dairy products to Tirumala. When a specific fact is pleaded in the writ petition, the respondents ought to have filed counter to deny the allegation based on the alleged proceedings. 15. The basis for the contention of the petitioner is that the said S. Praveen Krishna is unconcerned with the business of this petitioner. Vide letter dated 16.02.2019, whereby, petitioner made a request to the respondent to allot one quarter to it's authorized person Mr. Pradeep, who is working in Sangam Dairy and taking care of petitioner's sales points on par with Balaji Dairy. This letter was addressed about one year prior to the alleged taking over of possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 after terminating the license. But, it is the case of the petitioner that said Pradeep is the authorized person to transact business on behalf of this petitioner. This letter was addressed about one year prior to the alleged taking over of possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 after terminating the license. But, it is the case of the petitioner that said Pradeep is the authorized person to transact business on behalf of this petitioner. The petitioner specifically contended that the said S. Praveen Krishna, who allegedly took possession of items from Shop Nos. 114 and 115, handing over the shops to the respondent is no way concerned with the petitioner and the respondents allegedly set-up a third person of their own and created these proceedings. There is some substance in the contention of this petitioner, since the petitioner addressed a letter to the Chairman, T.T.D. on 16.02.2019 informing that one Pradeep is working in Sangam Dairy and he is taking care of sales points of the petitioner on par with Balaji Dairy, is suffice to conclude that this petitioner appointed one Pradeep to look after the business, but not S. Praveen Krishna. When the business of the petitioner is taken care by one Pradeep, handing over possession and taking custody of the products available in Shop Nos. 114 and 115 by S. Praveen Krishna is impermissible under law, when he was not authorized to act on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the alleged notice dated 29.01.2020, whereby, the respondent allegedly took possession of the shops has nothing to do with the petitioner and non-disclosure of such fact which is not within the knowledge of the petitioner does not amount to suppression of any material fact, more so, when the petitioner authorized one Pradeep to look after the business of the petitioner. It is not the case of the respondents that said S. Praveen Krishna is also authorized person taking care of the business of this petitioner, but without disclosing the details of said S. Praveen Krishna, particularly, details of his employment in the petitioner's company, creates any amount of suspicion. Therefore, non-disclosure of such alleged factum of handing over possession cannot be said to be a suppression of material fact. 16. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel asserted that, the possession of Shop Nos. Therefore, non-disclosure of such alleged factum of handing over possession cannot be said to be a suppression of material fact. 16. Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel asserted that, the possession of Shop Nos. 114 and 115 was taken over by the respondents and suppression of the said fact disentitles this petitioner to claim purely a discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, while placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others (referred supra), where, the Apex Court referred the legal principle enunciated in R. vs. Kensingtom Income Tax Commissioners, (1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), wherein, Viscount Reading, C.J. observed as follows: “Where an ex-parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” 17. The Apex Court in Paragraph No. 38 observed as follows: “The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of Writ Courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because, the Court knows law but not facts.” 18. The principle laid down in the above judgment is not in quarrel, keeping in mind the principle, it is appropriate to examine the contention of Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel to the facts on hand. 19. As per letter dated 16.02.2019, one Mr. Pradeep was authorized by the petitioner to take care of its business, but not S. Praveen Krishna, who allegedly handed over possession of the shops by letter dated 29.01.2020 to the respondents. If, the possession of the shops was delivered to the respondent by the said authorized person Pradeep, the petitioner is expected to have knowledge about the said fact. Even the petitioner denied the alleged handing over of possession while asserting that the petitioner is still in possession of those two shops in Paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition. Therefore, the alleged suppression of material fact is not a ground to non-suit the petitioner, since, the very handing over of possession by the respondent to the petitioner is in dispute and somehow the respondent did not deny the fact asserted in Paragraph No. 6 of the writ affidavit by filing counter, but advanced arguments to dispose of the writ petition. A fact is asserted by the petitioner and not denied by the respondent by filing counter affidavit. A fact is asserted by the petitioner and not denied by the respondent by filing counter affidavit. The fact asserted in the writ affidavit has to be accepted and consequently, the alleged handing over of possession on 29.01.2020 cannot be said to be a suppression of material fact, which disentitled the petitioner to claim external relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Hence, I find no substance in the argument of Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel, while accepting the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, holding that the petitioner did not suppress any material fact in the writ petition to claim such relief. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. POINT No. 2: 20. Grant of license in favour of this petitioner is not in dispute and the terms and conditions of the lease vide proceeding dated 05.03.2005 is relevant to some extent to decide as to the grant of lease. These proceedings were issued by the Assistant Executive Officer (Revenue), T.T.D. Tirupati, allotting shop to Sangam Dairy, Guntur/petitioner herein of an extent of 10' x 10' just by the side of bunk allotted to Chittoor Milk Cooperative Society on the Northern side of CRO on payment of Royalty basis for its stock cum sale point. Proceedings vide Roc. No. Rev.1/427/ARO (Rev)/TRN/1/2005 dated 22.12.2009 were issued by the Assistant Executive Officer (Revenue) on behalf of the Executive Officer, T.T.D. Tirupati, allotting two vacant shops bearing Nos. 114 and 115 to the Managing Director, Sangam Dairy, Guntur @ Rs. 1,450/- per month per shop sale point as a rent on par with the other shops at H.T. Complex with 10% hike on the rent for every financial year on usual terms and conditions to sell the milk and milk products. The license was for indefinite period. However, license shall be subject to conditions contained in the annexure (license conditions). The relevant condition is Clause No. 18 which states that the license is terminable by giving two month notice either by the licensor or licensee during the subsistence period of license without assigning any reasons. 21. In view of the above clause, license is terminable by issuing two months notice either by licensor or licensee, but, no reason is required to be assigned. 21. In view of the above clause, license is terminable by issuing two months notice either by licensor or licensee, but, no reason is required to be assigned. But, Condition No. 19 further says that, the licensor shall have the right to impose penalty or cancel the license or if the licensees: (a) Violates the terms and conditions of license. (b) Carry on any activity violating the serenity and sanctity of Tirumala Hills and sentiments and belief of the visiting pilgrims. (c) Violations of terms and conditions issued from time to time. (d) Selling of items which are prohibited at Tirumala and not specified in the license. (e) Encroach upon the space around the licensed area. (f) Transfer right to third party to do business in the licensed premises (or) by way of sublet etc. 22. Clause 19 deals with the circumstances under which license can be cancelled. But, it is hedged by Clause 18 which mandates two months prior or advance notice for cancellation of such license granted in favour of the licensee or licensor. 23. Later, vide proceedings Roc. No. Rev.1/427/AEO (Rev)/TRN/1/2005 dated 10.10.2006, the Estate Officer incorporated certain terms and conditions in the license specifically to the petitioner. As per Clause 5, the license is subject to cancellation at any time without assigning any reasons with a notice of 24 hours. Further, as per Clause 6, the T.T.D. reserved its right to change the location of the sale point at any time without assigning any reasons. Thus, grant of 24 hours notice is prescribed in Clause 5 of the proceedings Roc. No. Rev.1/427/AEO (Rev)/TRN/1/2005 dated 10.10.2006 for cancellation of license at any time. 24. In any view of the matter, there is no dispute with regard to the terms and conditions incorporated in the license and deed of license was executed again on 17.02.2010, incorporating certain conditions. As per Clause 2 of the Deed of License dated 17.02.2010, the licensee does not confer any right whatsoever in respect of the shop/bunk licensed, but only a permission to run the shop/bunk in the licensed area for the trade mentioned in the order of license subject to terms and conditions of license. Therefore, the license is only subject to terms and conditions of the license granted in favour of this petitioner. Therefore, the license is only subject to terms and conditions of the license granted in favour of this petitioner. According to Clause 18 of the Deed of License dated 17.02.2010, the license is terminable by giving two moth notice either by the licensor or licensee during the subsistence period of license without assigning any reasons. 25. The Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 was signed by both, the Managing director of the petitioner company and Executive Officer, T.T.D. The Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 is the latest license deed which created relationship of licensee and licensor between the petitioner and the first respondent. By letter dated 26.12.2018, a request was made by the petitioner to Sri Putta Sudhakar Yadav, Chairman, Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams, Tirupati for providing a residential quarter to Mr. Pradeep, who is an authorized person of the petitioner, to transact business in Sangam Dairy and taking care of the petitioner's sales points on par with Balaji Dairy. Therefore, the latest Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 in terms of Clause 18 of the Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 and the license conditions annexed to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009, prescribed two months prior to advance notice for termination of license either by the licensor or licensee, without assigning any reason. But, the only proceedings dated 10.10.2006 contained a condition for cancellation of license with 24 hours notice vide Clause 5. But, the latest proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and the Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 obligates the licensor or the licensee to issue two months prior or advance notice for termination of license, subject to other conditions, which enabled the licensor to terminate the license. 26. In the facts of the present case, notice dated 29.01.2020 was issued to the petitioner, demanding to pay arrears of Rs. 11,039/- along with penalty of Rs. 272/- for Shop No. 114 and another sum of Rs. 7,283/- along with penalty of Rs. 61/- totaling to Rs. 18,655/- for Shop No. 115. But, the petitioner failed to pay the amount and therefore, the demanded payment of above amount within three months from the date of receipt of notice. The notice is not for terminating the lease, but it is only a demand for payment of arrears of Royalty, etc. Therefore, the notice cannot be termed as a notice, terminating the license granted in favour of this petitioner. The notice is not for terminating the lease, but it is only a demand for payment of arrears of Royalty, etc. Therefore, the notice cannot be termed as a notice, terminating the license granted in favour of this petitioner. However, the proceedings dated 28.01.2020 terminating the license granted in favour of this petitioner are on the following grounds: “The Departmental inspection was conducted on 02.08.2019 and it was noticed and found that the Sangam Dairy is selling Cool drinks, water bottles, in addition Sangam Dairy products and also encroached front portion by placing a "Hawker Thatta" to sell toys and a fridge and violated the following conditions:- License condition No. 2 The licensee does not confer any right whatsoever in respect of the shop/bunk licensed, but only a permission to run the shop/bunk in the licensed area for the trade mentioned in the order of license subject to terms and conditions of license. License condition No. 8 The licensee shall not in any manner whatsoever encroach upon the space or area around the licensed area. If TTD notices any encroachment, TTD will have right to impose penalty for the encroachments made. Articles removed from the encroached can be disposed by the licensor at his discretion. The licensee will not have any right over the articles removed from the encroachments. License Condition No. 19 The licensor shall have right to impose penalty (or) cancel the license (or) if the licensee: (a) Violates the terms and conditions of license. (b) Carry on any activity violating the serenity and sanctity of Tirumala Hills and sentiments and belief of the visiting pilgrims. (c) Violation of terms and conditions issued from time to time. (d) Selling of items which are prohibited at Tirumala and not specified in the license. (e) Encroach upon the space around the licensed area. (f) Transfer right to third party to do business in the licensed premises (or) by way of sublet etc. License Condition No. 22 The licensee should not permit third party to do any unlicensed business either by the side of his shop or in front of the shop like platform vendors or that as. If the licensee is caught permitting such cases his/her license for the said shop/bunk will be cancelled treating it as violation of license conditions. License Condition No. 22 The licensee should not permit third party to do any unlicensed business either by the side of his shop or in front of the shop like platform vendors or that as. If the licensee is caught permitting such cases his/her license for the said shop/bunk will be cancelled treating it as violation of license conditions. License Condition No. 23 The license should confine his business/trade to the area/shop licensed to him/her violation of this condition will be treated as encroachment. 27. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, permission was granted to this petitioner to sell water bottles by proceedings dated 12.02.2005, besides other products specified in the list of products. The following are the list of products permitted to be sold at the sale point:- S. No. Name of the product Qty. Rate of Royalty decided after negotiations Turnover of milk and milk products quoted by Vijaya dairy Nellore Balaji Dairy Tirupati Sangham Dairy Tirupati 1 Milk ltr. 25 paise 3000 lts 3000 lts 3000 lts 2 Butter Milk 200 Ml Sachet 15 paise 1000 sachets of 200 ml each No supply 100 sachets of 200 ml each 3 Dood Peda 200 gm box 75 paise per 200 gms packet 60 boxes each box 10 piece No supply 10 boxes each box 10 pieces 4 Ghee packets 500 ml 200 ml 20 paise for 200 ml 30 lts No supply 12 liters 5 Sterilized flavoured milk 200 ml 20 paise for 200 ml 500 bottles (200 ml) No supply 50 bottles (200 ml) 6 Ice cream pieces Each piece 20 paise per piece 500 pieces No supply No supply 7 Mango pockets 200 ml Rs. 1.00 per lt 50 lts No supply 12 lts 8 Tetra pack milk 500 ml 50 paise per lt. 25 lts No supply 12 lts 9 Water bottles 1 liter Rs. 1.00 per lt No supply No supply 100 bottles 10 Sweet lassi Cup 25 paise per No supply No supply 20 cups 11 Basandi Cup 50 gr 10 paise per cup No supply No supply 10 cups 28. Permission was accorded to sell water bottle of 1 liter on payment of Royalty of Rs. 1.00 per litre and the total turnover of bottles are limited to 100. Therefore, the alleged violation of terms and conditions, by sale of water bottles is not a violation. Permission was accorded to sell water bottle of 1 liter on payment of Royalty of Rs. 1.00 per litre and the total turnover of bottles are limited to 100. Therefore, the alleged violation of terms and conditions, by sale of water bottles is not a violation. The contention of Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel is that, sale of water bottles is violative of terms and conditions of the license and the same cannot be accepted, in view of the proceedings dated 12.02.2005, which is continuing to be in force. 29. The first license condition violation complained against this petitioner as mentioned in the order is not at all a violation. 30. Coming to the other violation complained by the first respondent is violation of License Condition No. 8. According to it, the licensee shall not in any manner whatsoever encroach upon the space or area around the licensed area. If TTD notices any encroachment, TTD will have right to impose penalty for the encroachments made. Articles removed from the encroached can be disposed by the licensor at his discretion. The licensee will not have any right over the articles removed from the encroachments. If, for any reason, Condition No. 8 as complained in the impugned order is violated, the procedure prescribed in Condition No. 8 is to be followed. But, it is not a ground to cancel or terminate the license. More so, the alleged encroachment is placing hawker thatta, found during inspection by the department on 02.08.2019, containing toys and keeping a fridge. But, there is no material as to seizure of hawkers thatta to sell toys and a fridge for violation of Condition No. 8 and sale of the same. No panchanama was prepared and the inspection conducted by the departmental authorities of T.T.D. would establish that the departmental authorities found encroachment by hawkers thatta to sell toys and a fridge beyond the shop is baseless and no notice was issued, nothing was seized in terms of Condition No. 8 as stated above. Therefore, the alleged termination or cancellation of license for violation of License Condition No. 8 as stated above is an arbitrary exercise of power. 31. The other condition allegedly violated is License Condition No. 19. According to it, the licensor shall have right to impose penalty (or) cancel the license (or) if the licensee: (a) Violates the terms and conditions of license. 31. The other condition allegedly violated is License Condition No. 19. According to it, the licensor shall have right to impose penalty (or) cancel the license (or) if the licensee: (a) Violates the terms and conditions of license. (b) Carry on any activity violating the serenity and sanctity of Tirumala Hills and sentiments and belief of the visiting pilgrims. (c) Violation of terms and conditions issued from time to time. (d) Selling of items which are prohibited at Tirumala and not specified in the license. (e) Encroach upon the space around the licensed area. (f) Transfer right to third party to do business in the licensed premises (or) by way of sublet etc. 32. Nothing is stated about the specific violation, except Condition No. 8. It is an enabling provision to permit the licensor to cancel the license for carrying on such activities prescribed under clauses (a) to (f). No notice was issued complaining such violations at any time and no details are furnished. Even otherwise, the alleged violation of License Condition No. 19 permits the licensor to terminate the license subject to its establishment. But, no material is available to substantiate the contention about violation of License Condition No. 8, enabling the licensor to exercise power under License Condition No. 9 of the license. 33. Coming to the other violations, the petitioner allegedly violated License Condition No. 22, which prohibits the licensee to permit any third party to do any unlicensed business either by the side of his shop or in front of the shop like platform vendors. If the licensee is caught permitting such cases his/her license for the said shop/bunk will be cancelled treating it as violation of license conditions. But, this was not the case of the respondents at all and never complained such violation by issuing any notice. 34. Similarly, the petitioner allegedly violated License Condition No. 23, which restricts the licensee to continue his business/trade to the area/shop licensed to him/her and violation of this condition will be treated as encroachment. 35. This is almost identical to violation of License Condition No. 8. But, no encroachment is specified in the order under challenge, except extracting the conditions allegedly violated without disclosing any details as to such violations, except allowing hawkers thatta to sell toys and keeping a fridge. 35. This is almost identical to violation of License Condition No. 8. But, no encroachment is specified in the order under challenge, except extracting the conditions allegedly violated without disclosing any details as to such violations, except allowing hawkers thatta to sell toys and keeping a fridge. As such, the order is totally lacking the details of violations and no notice was issued calling for this petitioner to give explanation for violations and no material is produced evidencing inspection and finding of said violations during inspection in panchanama in the mediators report. 36. Even in the notice of payment dated 29.01.2020, no violation is complained by the respondent, except demanding payment of 18,655/- for Shop Nos. 114 and 115. More so, when no notice was issued as per the terms and conditions of the license, which the respondent referred in the impugned order by terminating the license. The respondent mostly relied on the annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 which contained 26 conditions of license. Though the proceedings were issued annexing terms and conditions of license, Deed of License dated 17.02.2010 was executed on the subsequent date i.e. on 17.02.2010. There is a reference about the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and the license was granted on usual terms and conditions mentioned in the license deed. The license deed consists of all the conditions imposed in the annexure. It is not the case of the respondent that the respondent is not aware of the terms and conditions of the license. But, the respondent, for reasons best known to it, did not issue any prior notice, as required as per License Condition No. 8 of the license deed or annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009. When the respondent is contemplating to cancel or terminate the license even without assigning any reason, the respondent is required to comply Condition No. 18 of the terms and conditions of the license in the event of violating any of the conditions specified in (a) to (f) in Condition No. 19. But, no notice, as mandated under Condition No. 18 of the license deed or the annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 was issued, straight away passed an order terminating the license of the petitioner. But, no notice, as mandated under Condition No. 18 of the license deed or the annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 was issued, straight away passed an order terminating the license of the petitioner. When condition in the license required two months advance or prior notice for terminating or canceling the license, it is the duty of the licensor to adhere to the terms and conditions and issue notice, as mandated in Clause 18. But, for one reason or other, may be due to political reasons, as mentioned in the affidavit, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed by the respondent totally in violation of Condition No. 18 of the license conditions annexed to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and the Deed of License dated 17.02.2010. Condition No. 19 is incorporated in the license, based on the principle of natural justice. But, the respondent totally in violation of principles of natural justice, though under obligation to issue two months prior notice, did not adhere to it and passed the impugned order. 37. Though the respondent complained several violations in the order, more particularly, found during departmental inspection dated 02.08.2019, it is not substantiated by any material like panchanama or a mediators report in whose presence the notice was done. A bare allegation in the order about inspection and finding such violations without issuing notice to this petitioner cannot be taken as a gospel truth to accept the contention of the respondent, as a reason, for termination/cancellation of the license granted in favour of the petitioner. At the same time, though inspection was taken allegedly three months prior to the termination, it was not put to the notice to this petitioner about the violations, though a demand notice was issued on 29.01.2020 for payment of Rs. 18,655/- towards Royalty dues. Therefore, there is absolutely no material on record to prove the alleged violations, except the allegation made in the order. Hence, based on such unsubstantiated violations, the order terminating the license of this petitioner is liable to be set-aside. 38. The jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and this Court can examine the process of passing administrative order. Hence, based on such unsubstantiated violations, the order terminating the license of this petitioner is liable to be set-aside. 38. The jurisdiction of Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India is limited and this Court can examine the process of passing administrative order. If the Court finds that the procedure violated by the administrative authorities is contrary to the principles of natural justice or the procedure established or the terms and conditions of the license, the Court can interfere with the administrative orders passed by the administrative authorities or quasi judicial authorities. In West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 9 Scale 573 , herein the Apex Court reiterated the following principles of judicial review: “It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the Petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the Respondents of a legal duty. The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna, (1960) AIR SC 137. If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. The sweep of power Under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. However, the power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.” 39. Applying the principle laid down in the above judgment to the present facts of the case, the process followed by the administrative authority/respondent is examined and found that the order impugned in the writ petition was not preceded by two months prior or advance notice, as mandated under Condition No. 18 of the annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and Deed of License dated 17.02.2010. Thus, the respondent violated the procedure for termination of the license prescribed in the license and the proceedings referred above. In such case, this Court can interfere with such administrative orders. Violation of principles of natural justice is also another ground to set-aside the impugned order. 40. The contention of Sri Y.V. Ravi Prasad, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent is strange and it appears to have invented a ground to terminate the license granted in favour of this petitioner and made a serious allegation that the petitioner is selling water bottles, even without looking into the proceedings issued by the proceedings issued by the respondent, while granting license in the year 2005, where the petitioner was permitted to sell 100 water bottles vide proceedings dated 12.02.2005 on payment of Rs. 1.00 as Royalty to this respondent, subject to the terms and conditions included in the proceedings. Though permission was granted for sale of 100 water bottles, still the respondent complained that sale of water bottles is contrary to the license. This contention is totally contrary to the terms and conditions of the proceedings dated 12.02.2005, by which, initially the petitioner was inducted as a licensee. 41. Coming to the sale of cool drinks, there is absolutely no material. Therefore, the respondent appears to have passed this order to put an end to the license granted in favour of this petitioner, obviously for the reasons best known to it. Hence, the order impugned in the writ petition is liable to be set-aside, not only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as mandated under Condition No. 18 of the annexure to the proceedings dated 22.12.2009 and Deed of License dated 17.02.2010, besides the unsubstantiated allegations. 42. In view of my foregoing discussion, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside, while declaring the same as illegal and arbitrary. 43. In the result, writ petition is allowed, declaring the action of the first respondent in issuing impugned notice vide File No. T.T.D. 81021(31)/166/2019-Rev.TML dated 28.01.2020 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently set-aside the same. No costs. 44. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.