ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the 6th Respondent in issuing Letter dated 14.05.2025 seeking to implement e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 in respect of DOT Shops/Stalls No 16, 17 and 18 situated in Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, despite subsistence of a valid and unexpired Deed of License granted in favour of Petitioners for a fixed period of twenty years and despite pendency and culmination of earlier rounds of litigation between the same parties concerning the very same subject matter. Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus declaring the said action as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the terms of the Deed of License, and for consequential reliefs. 2. Petitioners state that Petitioner No.1 is an individual engaged in lawful commercial activity and is the successful licensee under the Deposit, Operate and Transfer (DOT) Scheme in respect of Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18 situated at Jagtiyal Bus Station, Karimnagar District, and Petitioner No.2 is similarly placed and jointly holds the said license along with Petitioner No.1. 2.1. It is stated that Corporation, in furtherance of its statutory functions, invited bids for construction and operation of shops/stalls in the vacant land available at Jagtiyal Bus Station under the Deposit, Operate and Transfer (DOT) Scheme, by collecting non-refundable deposits from intending business persons and stipulating payment of a fixed monthly license fee, subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Deed of License. Pursuant to the said notification, they submitted bids for DOT Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18 located at Jagtiyal Bus Station, offering to pay a monthly license fee of Rs.5,000/- per stall in addition to a non-refundable deposit of Rs.2,40,000/-. The said offer was accepted and communicated to Petitioners vide letters dated 08.01.2015. Pursuant to the said acceptance, Petitioners deposited Rs.2,40,000/- towards non-refundable deposit, which, as per the terms of the scheme, does not carry any interest. 2.2. It is further stated that a Deed of License was thereafter executed in favour of Petitioners granting them license to construct, operate and conduct business in the said DOT Shops/Stalls for a fixed and non-extendable period of twenty (20) years commencing from 09.02.2015 and ending on 08.02.2035. 2.2. It is further stated that a Deed of License was thereafter executed in favour of Petitioners granting them license to construct, operate and conduct business in the said DOT Shops/Stalls for a fixed and non-extendable period of twenty (20) years commencing from 09.02.2015 and ending on 08.02.2035. The Deed of License specifically stipulates that upon expiry of the said license period, the Petitioners shall vacate the shops and hand over vacant possession to the Respondent Corporation and that no extension of the license period shall be granted beyond the stipulated term. 2.3. Petitioners state that while they were carrying on their business strictly in accordance with the terms of the Deed of License, the 5 th Respondent issued Notice-II dated 15.09.2021 alleging that a committee comprising the 6 th Respondent, the Deputy Executive Engineer (C), Karimnagar and the Assistant Manager (Traffic), Jagtiyal, had inspected stalls and found that Petitioners had allegedly encroached additional areas measuring 232.75 sq.ft, 231.16 sq.ft and 231.16 sq.ft respectively. Petitioners specifically contended that inspection report dated 31.08.2021, which formed the basis of the said notice, was never furnished to them. The said notice directed Petitioners to vacate the alleged encroached area forthwith or to pay additional license fee, failing which termination of license and forfeiture of the non-refundable deposit was threatened. 2.4. It is stated that thereafter, another notice dated 05.07.2022 was issued reiterating the very same allegations. The Regional Tender Committee convened a meeting on 22.06.2022 and held negotiations with Petitioners in relation to the alleged encroachment, during the course of which, they expressed readiness / willingness to pay additional license fee of Rs.2,000/- for the alleged additional area, without prejudice to their contention that there was no encroachment. However, the said proposal was not accepted by the Regional Tender Committee. Petitioners further state that notices dated 25.11.2022 and 06.01.2023 were issued alleging violation of Item No.2 of the Deed of License, stating that Tender Committee, Karimnagar had decided to collect enhanced monthly amounts of Rs.25,321/-, Rs.25,216/- and Rs.20,783/- respectively from 02.09.2021 towards license fee and charges for utilization of the alleged additional space. Petitioners were called upon to pay the said amounts along with arrears within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which termination of license and forfeiture of deposit was threatened. A further notice dated 05.06.2023 reiterating the same demands was also issued. 2.5. Petitioners were called upon to pay the said amounts along with arrears within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which termination of license and forfeiture of deposit was threatened. A further notice dated 05.06.2023 reiterating the same demands was also issued. 2.5. It is stated that a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 was thereafter issued, making reference to all the earlier notices dated 15.09.2021, 05.07.2022, 25.11.2022, 06.01.2023 and 05.06.2023, and calling upon Petitioners to submit their explanation within seven days. It is asserted, from the inception of license, there was no encroachment whatsoever in front of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16 and 17 and that the front tin roof provided for shelter does not amount to encroachment. Regional Tender Committee has no authority or jurisdiction to alter or re-determine the terms and conditions of the Deed of License and that in terms of Clause 32 of the Deed of License, any dispute arising out of the terms and conditions of the license can only be decided by the Managing Director of APSRTC/TSRTC, whose decision alone is final and binding on the parties. It is also stated, there are twenty-one (21) DOT Shops/Stalls in Jagtiyal Bus Station and that similar notices were issued to all such stall holders. 2.6. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 21.07.2023, Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 20696 of 2023. By order dated 03.08.2023, this Court declined to quash the show cause notice but directed Petitioners to submit their explanation within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and further directed the Regional Manager, Karimnagar to consider the explanation, afford reasonable opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within four weeks, while restraining the Respondents from initiating any coercive steps in the interregnum. Petitioners however, due to oversight, could not submit explanation within the time stipulated. Thereafter, the 6 th Respondent issued Final Order dated 19.09.2023 terminating the license granted in favour of Petitioners; immediately thereafter, Petitioners submitted representation dated 21.09.2023 requesting permission to submit their explanation and seeking reconsideration of the matter. However, the DOT Shops/Stalls were closed by the Respondents from 23.09.2023 onwards. 2.7. Petitioners thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 27244 of 2023 seeking a direction to Respondents to consider their representation dated 21.09.2023. However, the DOT Shops/Stalls were closed by the Respondents from 23.09.2023 onwards. 2.7. Petitioners thereafter, filed Writ Petition No. 27244 of 2023 seeking a direction to Respondents to consider their representation dated 21.09.2023. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court on 18.10.2023 directing the 6 th Respondent to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, proceedings dated 23.11.2023 were issued by the 6 th Respondent, which according to Petitioners did not properly consider their explanation and failed to assign cogent or sustainable reasons. Aggrieved thereby, Petitioners challenged the said proceedings in Writ Petition No.33097 of 2023. Pursuant to directions of this Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to conduct local inspection of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16, 17 and 18. The Advocate Commissioner submitted the report stating that alleged encroachment was only 5.95 sq.ft in respect of DOT Shops/Stalls No.16 and 18 and 63.7 sq.ft in respect of DOT Stall No.17, which is wholly contrary to the alleged encroachment of 232.75 sq.ft and 231.16 sq.ft mentioned in the show cause notice dated 21.07.2023 and earlier notices. 2.8. While Writ Petition No. 33097 of 2023 was pending adjudication before this Court, Respondents issued e-Tender Notification dated 08.07.2024 calling for fresh bids in respect of the very same shops. Petitioners immediately submitted representation dated 18.07.2024 bringing to the notice of Respondents that subject matter was pending before this Court and thereafter, filed Writ Petition No.19737 of 2024 challenging the said e-Tender Notification. By a common order dated 21.10.2024 in Writ Petitions No. 33097 of 2023 and 19737 of 2024, this Court directed Petitioners to pay the requisite charges as per the rules in force for the encroached portion as indicated in the Advocate Commissioner's report and further directed that upon such payment, Respondent Corporation shall consider leasing the shops in favour of the Petitioners. 2.9. Petitioners state that in compliance with the said directions, they submitted representations dated 01.11.2024 and 10.02.2025. However, Respondent Corporation issued proceedings dated 03.03.2025 demanding payment for the period from 02.09.2021 to 31.01.2025, including the period during which the shops were admittedly closed by the Respondents from 23.09.2023 onwards. Petitioners submitted a further representation dated 07.03.2025 specifically stating that they are not liable to pay license fee for the period during which they were dispossessed and expressed readiness to pay charges up to 23.09.2023. 2.10. Petitioners submitted a further representation dated 07.03.2025 specifically stating that they are not liable to pay license fee for the period during which they were dispossessed and expressed readiness to pay charges up to 23.09.2023. 2.10. While the said representation was still pending consideration, Respondents issued a fresh e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 and issued Letter dated 14.05.2025 seeking to implement the same. Petitioners immediately submitted representation dated 17.05.2025 agreeing to pay the encroachment charges determined by the authorities excluding the period from 23.09.2023 till restoration of possession and requesting de-notification of the tender. The said representation has not been considered till date. Petitioners contend that the license granted in their favour is valid and subsisting till 08.02.2035 and that issuance of a fresh tender during the subsistence of the license, without lawfully terminating the same and without complying with the binding orders passed by this Court, is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of natural justice. 3. No counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondents. There is no denial on record of the factual assertions made by the Petitioners. 4. Heard Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, learned counsel for petitioners as well as Sri N. Chandra Shaker, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation. 5. Petitioners’ case is that they are entitled to exemption from payment of license fee and encroachment charges for the period commencing from 23.09.2023 till restoration of possession and that issuance of e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 is arbitrary. This Court is unable to accept the said contention. 6. It is not in dispute that Petitioners were granted license under the Deposit, Operate and Transfer scheme pursuant to proceedings dated 08.01.2015 which commenced from 09.02.2015, governed by the terms and conditions of the Deed of License and the applicable rules and regulations of the Respondent Corporation. The license, though for a fixed period, is not unconditional and does not confer an absolute right to continue irrespective of violations. The material on record reveals that inspections conducted by Respondents in August, 2021 disclosed unauthorised occupation of additional area beyond the sanctioned shop limits. Therefore, notices dated 15.09.2021, 05.07.2022, 25.11.2022, 06.01.2023 and 05.06.2023 were issued alleging encroachment and demanding payment of charges, however, Petitioners did not vacate the encroached area nor did they comply with the demands raised. The material on record reveals that inspections conducted by Respondents in August, 2021 disclosed unauthorised occupation of additional area beyond the sanctioned shop limits. Therefore, notices dated 15.09.2021, 05.07.2022, 25.11.2022, 06.01.2023 and 05.06.2023 were issued alleging encroachment and demanding payment of charges, however, Petitioners did not vacate the encroached area nor did they comply with the demands raised. Their contention that inspection report was not supplied does not absolve them of the obligation to respond substantively or comply provisionally, particularly when repeated notices were issued over a period exceeding two years. 7. The plea that the Regional Tender Committee lacked jurisdiction is also devoid of merit. Notices issued were preliminary in nature and culminated in a show cause notice dated 21.07.2023, which was subjected to judicial scrutiny in Writ Petition No. 20696 of 2023. In the said case, by order dated 03.08.2023, this Court granted Petitioners liberty to submit explanation within two weeks and restrained coercive action till consideration of such explanation. It is an admitted fact that Petitioners failed to submit any explanation within the time granted by this Court. Having failed to avail a judicially-granted opportunity, they cannot later contend violation of principles of natural justice. 8. The termination proceedings dated 19.09.2023 thus flowed directly from Petitioners’ non-compliance with the directions of this Court and cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Even after termination, Respondents acted with restraint and considered Petitioners’ representation dated 21.09.2023 pursuant to directions issued in Writ Petition No.27244 of 2023. Subsequently, in W.P.No.33097 of 2023, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and the report dated 06.02.2024 quantified the extent of encroachment. Though petitioners rely heavily on the said report which states that encroachment is very meagre and not as stated by respondents in the notices, the same does not advance their case unless they discharge the corresponding financial liability arising therefrom. The common order dated 21.10.2024 in Writ Petitions No. 33097 of 2023 and 19737 of 2024 did not grant unconditional restoration of possession. On the contrary, it clearly directed Petitioners to pay charges for the encroached portion as per the rules in force, and only thereafter directed the Respondents to consider leasing of the shops. 9. Further, this Court also finds substance in Respondents’ contention that fresh e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 was issued only after Petitioners failed to clear the dues despite repeated demands and despite clear directions of this Court. 9. Further, this Court also finds substance in Respondents’ contention that fresh e-Tender Notification dated 11.04.2025 was issued only after Petitioners failed to clear the dues despite repeated demands and despite clear directions of this Court. The tender was not issued during pendency of representations arbitrarily, but only after it became evident that Petitioners were unwilling to comply with the conditions precedent imposed by judicial orders. The plea that issuance of tender violates the subsisting license also cannot be accepted. Once the license stood terminated on 19.09.2023 and Petitioners failed to secure restoration by complying with conditions imposed by this Court, they cannot claim a vested right to continue till 2035. 10. It is a settled principle that a writ court does not act as an appellate authority over contractual disputes, particularly where petitioner is in breach of contractual and statutory obligations. Petitioners seek equitable relief while remaining in default of admitted dues, which disentitles them to discretionary relief under Article 226. This Court therefore, finds no merit in the Writ Petition and holds that Petitioners failed to establish any enforceable legal right warranting interference. 11. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs. 12. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.