ORDER:

Heard Sri Shyam S.Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Manohar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Municipal Corporation.

2. The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:- nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the notice dated 02.07.2010 issued by the respondent No.2 vide LIC No.25/639/2368, purported to be under Section 622 (4) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 applicable to Vijayawada Municipal Corporation under Section 7 to Act 23 of 1091, as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded, unreasonable, violative of principles of natural justice, consequently direct the respondents not to insist the petitioner to obtain trade licence fee for their business of chit fund in premises of 27-38-1, 3rd floor, Sri Sailaja Estate, Gudavallivari Street, Governorpet, Vijayawada in the interest of justice.=.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been running a chit fund business and was served with a notice issued by the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner is running the business without obtaining licence and it was treated as unauthorized trade. The petitioner was directed to stop the trade forthwith and clear the premises of 27-38-1, 3rd floor, Sri Sailaja Estates, Gudavallivari street, Governorpet, Vijayawada. The petitioner was further directed to pay licence fee for the year 2010- 2011 for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. In fact, the petitioner was never required to obtain any trade licence for running the business as the same is not governed under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955.

Challenging the highhanded action of the 2nd respondent, the present Writ Petition is filed.

4. No counter is filed by the respondents.

5. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents urged in the petition.

6. The present writ petition is filed solely on the ground that there is no valid reason for bringing the trade in chit fund business under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, insisting to obtain trace licence. The petitioner relied upon a Judgment in W.P.No.18327 of 2004, wherein it was held that similar issues under various writ petitions were filed before this Court were dismissed. Challenging which, appeals have been preferred and thereafter the matters have been carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeals, which were allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by a Judgment, dated 02.03.2001, in the case of A.P.Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association V. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad1.

7. In the aforesaid Judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at Para No.12 as under:-

<.....Thus, if a shop or some shops are set up in crowded areas or require any regulation, then it would be a matter for regulating that particular shop or those particular shops by laying down appropriate conditions. Merely because a pawn broker or a money

1 AIR 2001 SC 1356

lender is likely to set up a shop in the thick of a residential locality or in a crowded place would be no ground for the Commissioner to come to a conclusion that the entire trade or occupation of money lending and pawn broking is dangerous or likely to create nuisance. It is clarified that this Court is not saying that the Commissioner cannot under Section 521(e)(ii) notify a particular trade or operation, i.e. include all persons carrying on that particular trade or operation.=

8. As the present writ petition is identical to the plea raised by the petitioners in the above referred judgment, the present writ petition is to be allowed.

9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed directing the respondents not to insist the petitioner to obtain trade licence for their chit fund business. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

_______________________

JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date : 04.05.20