ORDER : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri C.Ramachandra Raju, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Sri P.Shamantak, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent vide his Proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 15.04.2024 directing the petitioner to pay the licence fee with effect from 06.01.2024 is without any basis, highly unwarranted, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable and violating of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and pass such other order…” 3. This Court vide its orders dated 03.05.2024 passed orders in favour of the petitioner observing as under: “Heard Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M.Rammohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TS RTC appearing on behalf of the respondents. Notice before admission. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 15.04.2024 of the 2 nd respondent indicates at the first para that petitioner had entered into an agreement for the period of five years from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2029 but a perusal of the contents of the letter dated 18.03.2024 vide proceedings No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR of the 2 nd respondent indicates that petitioner had been advised to attend the office along with non judicial stamp paper worth Rs.1,83,027/- for entering into an agreement immediately hence, this Court opines that plea of the 2 nd respondent vide the impugned order dated 15.04.2024 that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for the period of five years from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2029 is itself, factually incorrect, as borne on record, hence this Court opines that the order impugned of the 2 nd respondent dated 15.04.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay the licence fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024 to the DM/PKT within a week days from the date of receipt of the impugned letter dated 15.04.2024 needs to be stayed. Taking into consideration, the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the operation of the proceedings No.P4/ 122(73)/ 2023-RR, dated 15.04.2024 issued by the second respondent directing the petitioner to pay the licence fee with effect from 06.01.21124 in respect of petitioner's stall i.e., Fast Food Centre in JBS, is suspended for a period of eight (8) weeks from today.” The said orders were being extended from time to time and are in force as on date. 4. The case of the petitioner as per the averments made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition in brief, is as under: (i) The Petitioner herein, is a tenderee of tender under Tender Notification No.:P4/797(5-e.Tender)/2023-RR, dated 04.10.2023, and it was allotted to Petitioner, through proceedings vide No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 6.12.2023, for a period of five years on an initial monthly license fee of Rs.6,61,999/- for first year, with an enhancement of 5 % for every consecutive year. (ii) It is the specific case of the petitioner that after payment of security deposit through demand draft, on representation of petitioner through letter dated 19.02.2024, Respondent No. 2 directed the Depot Manager to hand over the premises to petitioner, through letter dated 21.02.2024. Subsequently, it was handed over to petitioner, and on 12.04.2024, petitioner commenced its business, and the same was even informed to Respondent No.2 by Depot Manager through letter dated 22.04.2024. (iii) It is further the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 issued proceeding vide No.:P4/122(73)/2023-RR dated 15.04.2024, directing the petitioner to pay license fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024, even though the business had commenced on 12.04.2024 by petitioner and further threatened, the petitioner to pay the balance license fee . Aggrieved by said proceedings and acts of Respondent no.2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 5. PERUSED THE RECORD. 6. Proceedings issued by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner vide No.P4/ 122(73)/ 2023-RR dated 18.03.2024, is extracted hereunder: “TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR O/o the Regional Manager, RR MGBS, HYD Dt: 18.03.2024 // Through DM/PKT// To Sri Majjige Vittal S/o. Maruthi Stall No.1 at JBS H.No.1-36, Wangdhal Wasar, Medak-502286 Ph.No.9618716162 Sub:- STALLS – Grant of licence to run the business of “Fast Food Centre the stall No.1(PUCCA) at JBS to Sri M.Vittal – Representation submitted by you – Reg. Ref:- 1. This Office Allotment Order No.even, Dt.06.12.2023 2. Ref:- 1. This Office Allotment Order No.even, Dt.06.12.2023 2. Your representation submitted to RM/RR on 14.02.2024 &&& The Competent Authority examined the representation submitted by you vide reference 2 nd cited with relevant records and not considered your request to grant one month time to enter into an agreement & to undertake works. It is further order that, since no relief was granted by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.34424/2023 filed by you, the allotment order dt.06.12.2023 shall stands good. Therefore, it is once again advised you to attend this Office along with non judicial stamp paper worth Rs.1,83,027/- for entering into an agreement immediately. Please acknowledge the receipt. Sd/- PERSONAL OFFICER RANGAREDDY REGION” 7. Proceedings dated 22.04.2024 issued by the Depot Manager, Picket Depot, JBS to the Personnel Officer TSRTC, RR Region, MGBS, Hyderabad, is extracted hereunder: “TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION No.O2/122(P1)/2024-PKT O/o the Depot Manager, Picket Depot, JBS, Dt: 22.04.2024 To The Personnel Officer TSRTC, RR Region, MGBS, HYDERABAD. Sub:- CONTRACT– Allotment of Stall No.P1(Pucca, 34.11’X39) at JBS (under DM/PKT) to Sri Majjige Vittal to run the business of “Fast Food Centre)” – Commencement of business – Reg. Ref:- 1) Allotment order No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR, Dt:06.12.2023. 2) Controller/JBS Report, dt. 12.04.2024 received on 22.04.2024. ***** It is to inform that the licensee of Stall No.P1 “Fast Food Centre” at JBS allotted to Sri. Majjige Vittal vide reference 1 st cited has commenced the business w.e.f. 12.04.2024 as reported by Controller of JBS vide reference 2 nd cited. The electricity meter reading opening number is 000069.5. A Xerox copy of report of controller vide reference 2 nd cited is enclosed. Sd/- DEPOT MANAGER PICKET DEPOT” 8. Impugned Proceedings dated 15.04.2024 issued by the 2 nd respondent to the petitioner, is extracted hereunder: “TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR O/o the Regional Manager, RR MGBS, HYD Dt: 15.04.2024 // Through DM/PKT// To Sri Majjige Vittal S/o. Maruthi Stall No.1 at JBS H.No.1-36, Wangdhal Wasar, Medak-502286 Ph.No.9618716162 Sub:- STALLS – Grant of licence to run the business of “Fast Food Centre” in the stall No.1(PUCCA) at JBS to Sri M.Vittal – Representation submitted by you – Reg. Ref:- 1. This Office Allotment Order No.even, Dt.06.12.2023 2. This Office Lr No.Even, Dt.18.03.2024. 3. Order Dtd.08.01.2024 in WP No.34424/2023 filed by you. 4. Your representation submitted to RM/RR on 05.04.2024. Ref:- 1. This Office Allotment Order No.even, Dt.06.12.2023 2. This Office Lr No.Even, Dt.18.03.2024. 3. Order Dtd.08.01.2024 in WP No.34424/2023 filed by you. 4. Your representation submitted to RM/RR on 05.04.2024. &&& The Stall No.1 (PUCCA) at JBS has been allotted to you vide reference 1 st cited to run the business of Fast Food Centre for a period of five years on initial monthly License fee of Rs.6,61,999/- subject to certain terms & conditions. You have entered into an agreement for the period of five years from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2029. In response to your representation, it was informed vide reference 2 nd cited that since no relief was granted by the Hon’ble Court in W.P.No.34424/2023 filed by you, the allotment order dt. 06.12.2023 shall stand good. The Competent Authority examined the representation submitted by you vide reference 4 th cited with relevant records and not considered. Therefore, it is once again advised to pay the license fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024 to the DM/PKT immediately within a week days from the date of receipt of this letter or else further action will be taken as per the terms & conditions of the agreement. Please acknowledge the receipt. Sd/- PERSONAL OFFICER RANGAREDDY REGION” 9. Deed of Licence dated 04.04.2024 entered into between 1 st Respondent – Telangana State Road Transport Corporation and The petitioner – Majjige Vittal, the relevant portion clause 5, 6 b) c), is extracted hereunder: “5. The agreement is operative for a period of 5 years commencing from 06.01.2024 and ending with 05.01.2029. 6. LICENCE FEE: b) The Licensee shall pay the licence fee to the Corporation, without any deductions including TDS as Corporation is exempted from TDS. In other words, the amount agreed to be paid to the Corporation towards the contract shall be paid in toto. c) The licence fee shall be enhanced by 5%, 5%, 10%, 15% in 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th and 5 th year of licence over the licence fee payable in 1 st 2 nd , 3 rd , 4 th year of licence respectively. The license fee shall be as follows: Rs. 6,61,999/- per month from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2025 Rs. 6,95,099/- per month from 06.01.2025 to 05.01.2026 Rs. 7,29,854/- per month from 06.01.2026 to 05.01.2027 Rs. 8,02,839/- per month from 06.01.2027 to 05.01.2028 Rs. 9,23,265/- per month from 06.01.2028 to 05.01.2029 10. The license fee shall be as follows: Rs. 6,61,999/- per month from 06.01.2024 to 05.01.2025 Rs. 6,95,099/- per month from 06.01.2025 to 05.01.2026 Rs. 7,29,854/- per month from 06.01.2026 to 05.01.2027 Rs. 8,02,839/- per month from 06.01.2027 to 05.01.2028 Rs. 9,23,265/- per month from 06.01.2028 to 05.01.2029 10. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents, in particular the relevant portion at para 6.1, it is observed as under: “However, the petitioner eventually submitted the requisite Non-Judicial Stamp Paper on 04.04.2024, whereupon the agreement was executed. As per the terms of this agreement, the license period was affirmed to commence retroactively from 06.01.2024. Therefore, the petitioner is now legally obligated to remit the license fee, along with applicable GST, and charges for utilities such as electricity, maintenance, and water, in accordance with the binding terms of the allotment order.” 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) The petitioner is liable to pay licence fee only from the date of commencement of petitioner’s licence on 12.04.2024 as admitted by the Depot Manager vide his letter dated 22.04.2024 addressed to the office of the 2 nd respondent. (ii) The 2 nd respondent demand to the petitioner to pay the license fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024 is without any basis and without any justification whatsoever. (iii) Petitioner’s licence deed with the respondent Corporation was executed on 04.04.2024, pursuant to the letter of the 2 nd respondent dated 18.03.2024 directing the petitioner to submit Non-Judicial Stamp papers for entering into an agreement and admittedly petitioner’s agreement was not even in existence on 01.06.2024 and hence the 2 nd respondent cannot demand the petitioner to pay licence fee w.e.f 06.01.2024 even before commencement of petitioner’s business. (iv) In view of the fact that the Agreement period stipulated that the period of five years commenced from 06.01.2024 the petitioner cannot be compelled to pay the licence fee even before the commencement of petitioner’s business without any justification or reasonableness. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 12. Based on the aforesaid submissions the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly puts-forth the following submissions:- (i) The petitioner submitted the requisite non judicial stamp paper on 04.04.2024 where upon the agreement dated 04.04.2024 was executed between the respondent corporation and the petitioner and as per the terms of the said agreement, the license period would be operating for a period of (05) five years commencing from 06.01.2024 and ending with 05.01.2029 and the column license fee of the said agreement duly signed by the petitioner Clause (c) very clearly indicates the license period of the petitioner as having commenced w.e.f 06.01.2024 and therefore, the petitioner is obligated to remit the license fee, along with applicable GST and charges for utilities such as electricity, maintenance, and water in accordance with the binding terms of the allotment order (ii) The petitioner having signed and entered into an agreement cannot turn back deviating from the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent corporation. Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the Writ Petition needs to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. A bare perusal of the record clearly indicates that allotment order dated 06.12.2023 vide No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR was issued in favour of the petitioner by the Respondent Corporation, allotting Stall No.1 (Pucca, 34’.11 X 39’ = 1361 sft) at JBS (Under DM/PKT) to the petitioner to run the business of “Fast Food Centre” for a period of five years. 14. A bare perusal of the Proceedings dated 21.02.2024 vide No.P4/122(73)/2023-RR of the Office of the Regional Manager, RR, MGBS, Hyderabad of the Respondent Corporation issued to the Depot Manager, PKT Depot, JBS, Secunderabad, indicates that vide the said letter dated 21.02.2024 the depot Manager, PKT Depot, JBS, Secunderabad was requested to handover the subject stall to the petitioner and inform the date of handing over of stall and commencement of business to the office of the Regional Manager, RR, MGBS, Hyderabad, TSRTC. 15. 15. The contents of the Letter dated 22.04.2024 of the Depot Manager, TSRTC, Picket Depot addressed to the Personnel Officer, TSRTC, RR Region MGBS, Hyderabad clearly indicate that admittedly as borne on record the petitioner commenced his business w.e.f 12.04.2024 as reported by the Controller of JBS vide his Report dated 12.04.2024. 16. A bare perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 15.04.2024 of the 2 nd respondent issued to the petitioner indicates that petitioner had been advised to pay the licence fee w.e.f. 06.01.2024 to the DM/ PKT within a week from the date of receipt of the said letter dated 15.04.2024 failing which action would be initiated as per the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Respondent Corporation. This Court opines that the plea of the respondents that the petitioner entered into an agreement on 04.04.2024 and in the said agreement, the license period was clearly stipulated as having been commenced from 06.01.2024, which is in operation for a period of five (05) years i.e., till 05.01.2029 and the license fee column ‘C’ indicates clearly that the license period commenced from 06.01.2024 and the petitioner having signed the said agreement cannot turn back to abide by the said terms and conditions of the said agreement dated 04.04.2024 is not tenable in viewof the simple fact as borne on record that admittedly, the possession of the subject premises stall No.1 at JBS, Secunderabad was handed over only in pursuance to the letter dated 21.02.2024 of the office of the Regional Manager, Ranga Reddy, MGBS, Hyderabad addressed to the Depot Manager, PKT Depot, JBS, Secunderabad and the petitioner admittedly commenced his business even as per the letter of the Depot, Manager, PKT Depot, dated 22.04.2024 addressed to the personnel officer, TSRTC, RR Region, MGBS, Hyderabad w.e.f.12.04.2024 and not from 06.01.2024 as stipulated in the deed of license dated 04.04.2024 entered into between the respondent corporation and the petitioner. 17. 17. A bare perusal of the order impugned dated 15.04.2024 of the 2 nd respondent clearly indicates that the same had been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the license fee w.e.f.06.01.2024 to the DM/ PKT immediately within a week from the date of receipt of the copy of the said letter with a further clear stipulation that failing which action would be taken against the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the agreement is in clear violation of principles of natural justice and without considering the contents of the letter dated 18.03.2024 of the respondent corporation addressed to the petitioner and the contents of the letter dated 21.02.2024 of the respondent corporation addressed to the Depot Manager, PKT Depot, JBS, Secunderabad and also the contents of the letter dated 22.04.2024 of the Depot Manager, Picket Depot addressed to the Personnel Officer, TSRTC, RR Region, MGBS, Hyderabad. 18. The Apex Court Judgment reported in (2004) 2 SCC page 447 in " MANGI LAL V. STATE OF M.P. , a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10) observed as under: "10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to followa fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.” 19. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in “ SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA ” , the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18 - AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under : "44. In short, the general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise." 20. Taking into consideration:- a) The order impugned dated 15.04.2024 of the 2 nd respondent issued to the petitioner admittedly had been without issuing notice to the petitioner and in clear violation of principles of natural justice, b) The letter dated 21.02.2024 of the Office of the Regional Manager, RR, MGBS, Hyderabad addressed to the Depot Manager, PKT Depot, JBS, Secunderabad c) The letter dated 22.04.2024 of the Depot Manager, Picket Depot addressed to the Personnel Officer, TSRTC, RR Region, MGBS, Hyderabad. d) Duly considering the observations of the Apex Court in the judgments (referred to and extracted above), The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned proceedings, No.P4/ 122(73)/2023-RR of the 2 nd respondent dated 15.04.2024 issued against the petitioner is set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.