Writ petitioners filed the present writ petition praying for issuance of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the 151 respondent in not renewing their licences pursuant to their application, dated 19-11-2005, for renewal of licences as Surveyors/Supervisors pursuant to the directions of the 2nd respondent, dated 17 -11-2004, in memo No.8514/M1/2003-6, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice, and against Section 618 (1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and consequently direct the 151 respondent to forthwith renew their licences as Surveyors/Supervisors pursuant to their application dated 19-11-2005 and to pass such other order.

2. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, the learned counsel representing the writ petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 618 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1955, (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Act, for the purpose of convenience) and would maintain that the present impugned action was taken only keeping in view sub-section (2) of Section 618 of the Act totally ignoring subsection (1) of the said provision. The learned counsel also incidentally had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant byelaws and would maintain that the said byelaws may have to be understood in the context of sub-section (2) of Section 618 of the Act and this would not alter the situation in any way as far as sub-section (1) is concerned. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances, the writ petition to be allowed.

3. Sri Ranga Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the first respondent would maintain that the instructions given by 23 the Government (to the second respondent) is by way of a memo only and hence, the same need not be followed by the first respondent, the Municipal Corporation: of Vishakapatnam, (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the Corporation, for the purpose of convenience). The learned Standing Counsel also had referred to the impugned order and the reasons recorded therein and would maintain that taking the public interest into consideration, the said action was taken which is in accordance with law. The learned Standing Counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws 1981, (hereinafter for short referred to as bye-laws, for the purpose of convenience) and also Appendix-C as well and would contend that in the light of the qualifications, which had been specified, the impugned action is in accordance with law.

4. Heard the counsel.

5. The writ petitioners are the licensed surveyors and the qualifications of the writ petitioners had been furnished in detail in para-3 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. These writ petitioners are all qualified as Draughtsman Civil in ITI. It is stated that these petitioners were granted licenses for the respective years and the details in relation thereto also had been narrated. It is further stated that the writ petitioners are dependent on these licenses granted by the first respondent for their livelihood. Further, it was averred in para-5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that the petitioners are qualified in terms of the provisions of the Act, to act as Surveyors as they had necessary qualifications in the subject. It is further stated that apart from the qualifications which the petitioners had acquired, these are in accordance with the National Building Code of India as per Code 1970, the qualification of certificate from ITI is the necessary qualification to act as licensed Surveyor and hence, the petitioners are entitled to licenses to act as licensed surveyors in terms of National Building Code of India. It is further stated that t