JUDGMENT

MAJMUDAR, J.:- Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective cases. The appellants are the original writ-petitioners who filed two Writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The appellants are handicapped person.Appellant in civil appeal No.7565/94 arising out S.L.P. (C)No. 12861 of 1994 is also a 1984-riot victim. Both of them were granted licences under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to operate Angeleems type pay phone .(PCO) by the Commercial Officer, Telephones, Chandigarh.These licences were granted to them for five years.On the basis of those licences, the appellants applied to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh for being allotted suitable sites on the bus-stand at Chandigarh, where the PCO booths were to be located . Both of them were allotted suitable sites for one year each. So far as the appellant in civil appeal No. 7565/94 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12861 of 1994 is concerned, he was allotted a site measuring 8x 8 Ft. on 19-1-1993 at the rent of Rs.200/-p.m for a period of one year. So far as the appellant in the second appeal is concerned,he was initially allotted a site to locate his public booth call at Chandigarh bus-stand by the respondent for one year from 3-5-1991. Subsequently, the licence was renewed for a further period. However, by a communication dated 31-12-1993, the respondent informed the appellant that the permission to run the STD Pay Phone at the bus-stand was cancelled. Appellant in civil appeal No.7565/94 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12861 of 1994 was granted licence for one year which was expiring on 25-1-1994. He applied for renewal. His request was not granted. Under these circumstances, the appellants filed writ petitions in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, as aforesaid, praying for suitable direction to the respondent Administration to permit the appellants to run their STD booths till the entire period of licences granted to them by the Commercial Officer, Telephones, Chandigarh expired. The High Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that there was no legal right with the appellants to get such relief and hence the petitions were dismissed. That is how, the special leave petitions have been filed.

3. In our view, there is no substance in these appeals. Both these appellants even though armed with licences from Telephone Department to run PCO (Pay Phone) booths at Chandigarh bus-stand, for a number of years, had to obtain suitable plots from the Chandigarh Administration at the bus-stand to locate their booths . The licences given to them were for a fixed period. In the licences granted to them by the respondent Administration, there is no provision for any right of renewal of the licences so as to run during the entire period of their respective licences granted to them under the Indian Telegraph Act By the authorities. The liceces were for a fixed period. Learned counsel for the appellants took us through the relevant clauses of the licences. They could not pin-point any clause under which any such right of renewal was guaranteed or granted to the appellants by the respondent-Administration. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently relied upon clauses 3 and 14 of allotment orders which provided that allotment of space will be initially for one year. However, the Divisional Manager, Chandigarh, reserves the right to cancel the allotment any time by serving the notice of 30 days. The allottee also could get the allotment cancelled by serving the notice of 30 days; and it was further provided in clause 14 that the rent is applicable for the current year and can be enhanced at any time.Interpreting these clauses, the High Court rightly held that these clauses gave a discretion to the Chandigarh Administration to extend the period of licences. But, there is no right to the licensees to claim for extension of licences for any further fixed period. Consequently,