ORDER : (PULLA KARTHIK, J.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief : “… declaring the action of the 2 nd respondent vide his order no P4/122(59)/2022-RR dated 16.04.2025 in so far as it relates to imposing a condition for revocation of termination of license of the petitioner, directing the petitioner to pay all dues of license fee and the license fee from the date of termination of license till reopening of the stall is, highly unwarranted, capricious, highly unjust, highly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the terms and conditions of the license of the petitioner unsustainable, violative of articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and ………” 2) Heard Mr. C.Rama Chandra Raju, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, and Mr. R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel, for respondents. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted license for running stall No.31, C.C. Supermarket in Mahathma Gandhi Bus Stand, Hyderabad, for a period of five years from 17.11.2022 to 16.11.2027 on payment of license fee of Rs.4,15,500/- per month subject to enhancement and presently the petitioner is paying the enhanced license fee, including GST, of a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- per month and conducting his business. While so, respondent No.2 vide order dated 02.04.2025 has terminated the license of the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is selling unauthorized items, leaving other license holders of about 40 stalls who are also selling unauthorized items. Further, at the request of the petitioner dated 04.04.2025, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 16.04.2025 revoking the termination order dated 02.04.2025 by putting unlawful condition that the petitioner has to pay dues of license fee and also the license fee for the interregnum period from the date of termination of his license till the date of reopening of his stall, during which period the stall was closed due to termination of license, which is highly arbitrary and illegal. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.2 having realized his wrong in terminating the petitioner’s license and having decided to rectify his mistake by revoking the termination order is not at all justified in passing the conditional order of revocation by putting a condition for payment of license fee which has nothing to do with the termination of license of the petitioner. Once, respondent No.2 himself has revoked the termination order dated 02.04.2025, it must be absolute without any further or new conditions and imposition of new condition in the impugned revocation order is totally unwarranted, highly unjustified, arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable. Further, a procedure is envisaged under clause 28 of License Deed dated 28.12.2022 for recovery of license fee dues. As per said clause, in case of dues, service of one month notice in advance to the licensee is prescribed. No such notice is served on the petitioner ordering to pay the dues and the respondents cannot link the dues with revocation order. The subject matter of termination of license fee is altogether different and is nothing to do with the revocation of termination order passed for selling unauthorized items. The dues of license fee shall be dealt with separately by following due process of law. Thus, the learned counsel prays this Court to pass appropriate orders by setting aside the conditions imposed in the revocation order dated 16.04.2025 imposed by respondent No.2. 4) Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not paid the full license fee as agreed and fell due of an amount of Rs.19,99,665/-, which are pending from the month of November, 2022. He further submits that the termination order dated 02.04.2025 was revoked on 16.04.2025 considering the explanation of the petitioner dated 04.04.2025 wherein he categorically admitted selling of unauthorized items and has further pleaded that he will not repeat the same. Further, the condition imposed by the respondents is in terms of the Circular instructions of the Corporation vide Circular No.5/2022-OPD(M&C), dated 15.03.2022, wherein the respondent authorities are authorized to revoke the termination of license to the licensee subject to conditions that all the dues accrued have to be paid with interest as well as the license fee shall also be collected for the interregnum period. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing condition while passing revocation order is justified as the petitioner is not paying dues from November, 2022. Therefore, the action of the respondents in imposing condition while passing revocation order is justified as the petitioner is not paying dues from November, 2022. 5) In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in an earlier occasion when the authorities have terminated the license of the petitioner on the ground of non payment of license fee, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed W.P.No.7552 of 2023 disputing the quantum of license fee dues and this Court vide order 21.03.2023 has granted interim suspension of the termination notice dated 24.02.2023, however, subject to payment of license fee for the month of February, 2023, by the petitioner within a period of one week thereof. Learned counsel further contends as per the Circular dated 15.03.2022, only in cases where revocation is on account of default in payment of license fee, the question of imposition of condition of clearance of dues while ordering revocation would arise. But, in the present the termination is on account of selling of unauthorized items. Therefore, the Circular dated 15.03.2022 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner. 6) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective parties and perused the material on record. 7) As can be seen from the record, the license of the petitioner was terminated vide proceedings No.P4/122(59)/2022-RR, dated 02.04.2025, on the ground that he was selling unauthorized items viz., Tea, Tiffins, Cool drinks, biscuits & samosa, duly encroaching the extra open space of 4X3 feet area for conducting the tea business. It further reveals that in an earlier occasion he was already imposed with penalties. 8) The record further reveals that petitioner has submitted a representation seeking to cancel the termination order duly admitting his guilt. Relevant portion of the said letter reads under: “… I respect your word and removed unauthorized items that time itself for over a month (attaching the pictures of my stall along with this letter) but as there was no action been taken regarding this issue, then again I had sold tea and samosas because I have heavy rent of Rs.5,50,000/- (including GST) but now again I removed all the items and it won’t be repeated in future. Therefore please it’s a humble request to kindly cancel my termination letter by keeping my SD amount of Rs.35 lakhs (Thirty five lakhs) into consideration. Therefore please it’s a humble request to kindly cancel my termination letter by keeping my SD amount of Rs.35 lakhs (Thirty five lakhs) into consideration. I will do my business as per my agreement.” 9) From the above, it is clear that the petitioner himself has admitted that he was selling unauthorized items i.e. tea and samosas. Further, considering his request and assurance not to repeat the same, the revocation order was passed by respondent No.2 in the light of Circular dated 15.03.2022. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that said circular dated 15.03.2022 deals with revocation arising on account of termination for default in payment of license fee, and not on account of selling unauthorized items, the same cannot be countenanced. For better understanding of the matter, relevant portion of Circular dated 15.03.2022 is reproduced hereunder: “2) to revoke, but only once, the orders of termination to any particular licensee (either regular/DOT stalls) for default in payment of licence fee or for any other violation of terms and conditions of the agreement subject to the following conditions: i) Clearance of the licence fee dues accrued including interregnum period (by way of rent, GST, electricity and water charges) with penal interest, till the date of re-opening of the stall after revocation. ii) The license fee for the interregnum period i.e., from the date of termination till reopening shall be collected before permitting to re-open. iii) Such stall should not have been included in the tender notification published consequent to termination.” (emphasis added) 10) From the above, it is clear that Circular dated 15.03.2022 also deals with cases relating to violation of terms and conditions of agreement. Further, the Circular dated 15.03.2022 is also mentioned in the agreement dated 28.12.2022 entered by the parties and therefore the Circular also forms part of agreement dated 28.12.2022. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the contention of the petitioner that Circular dated 15.03.2022 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 11) Further, in his letter dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner himself has admitted about selling of unauthorized items and also encroachment for conducting his business. 11) Further, in his letter dated 02.04.2025, the petitioner himself has admitted about selling of unauthorized items and also encroachment for conducting his business. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the conditions imposed in the impugned revocation order cannot be faulted with or cannot be treated as onus as the revocation itself is at the instance/request of the petitioner. However, to balance the equities, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted time for payment of the dues. 12) Therefore, while confirming the impugned revocation order dated 16.04.2025, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to conduct his business subject to filing an undertaking to the effect that he will repay the dues in six equal monthly installments, payable on or before 10 th of every month, commencing from May, 2025. 13) Since the quantum of dues is not mentioned in the impugned revocation order dated 16.04.2025 and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has admitted in the reply that he is due of license for two months i.e. February and March 2025, the petitioner is directed to pay the said due amount in six equal monthly installments, as stated in para 12 above. However, for recovery of the remaining amount, the respondents are at liberty to follow due process of law. 14) With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.