JUDGMENT U.Durga Prasad Rao, J. - Heard Sri V.Venugopala Rao, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri Srinivas Bobbili, learned counsel for petitioner on record, learned Government Pleader for Transport representing on behalf of the 1st respondent, Sri M.Salmon Raju, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned standing counsel representing on behalf of the 3rd respondent and learned assistant Government Pleader for Revenue representing on behalf of the 4th respondent. 2. at the outset, the grievance of the petitioner is that so far the BOT project has not been grounded for various reasons and in that view, the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay annual premium amount of Rs. 3,33,39,676/- is unjust and illegal besides being violative of principles of natural justice since no show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner calling for his objections or explanation before passing the impugned order. 3. Refuting the same, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent would submit that series of meetings were held with the petitioner by the respondent authorities where under the annual amount as mentioned in the impugned order was confirmed and thereafter, only the impugned order dated 23.05.2022 was passed and therefore, the said order is valid one. To a Court question, learned standing counsel fairly admitted that no written show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. 4. In that view of the matter and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective cases of the parties, it is directed that the petitioner to treat the impugned order No.DIR(J)/COM/BOT/ 110(14)/2013-14, dated 23.05.2022 as a show-cause notice and submit his objections/explanation to the 2nd respondent within two weeks from today narrating therein why he need not pay the annual premium amount as demanded in the impugned notice. In which case, the 2nd respondent shall conduct a formal enquiry by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and then, pass an appropriate order in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously but not later than four weeks from the date of submission of objections/explanation by the petitioner. Till such exercise is completed, the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 23.05.2022. 5. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed. No costs. Till such exercise is completed, the respondents particularly the 2nd respondent shall not take any coercive measures against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order dated 23.05.2022. 5. With the above observations, this writ petition is closed. No costs. as a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.