THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.20218 OF 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution

of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring that the action of respondents No. 2 and 3 not allowing to run parking of vehicles on payment at the premises of H. No. 17-2-581, Madannapet vegetable market, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad as per licences issued by the 2nd respondent herein as illegal, arbitrary, intentional, mala fide, without jurisdiction, without any reason, against the principles of natural justice and violation of Article 300(A) of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere in the petitioners 1 to 6 day to day business running at the premises of H. No. 17-2-581, Madannapet vegetable market, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad as per

licences issued by the 2nd respondent herein..”

2. Heard Ms.Izab Begum, learned counsel representing Mr. K.Jagadishwar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader

for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the present writ petition has been filed questioning the alleged interference of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the day-to-day business of parking of vehicles in the premises of H. No. 17-2-581,

Madannapet Vegetable Market, notwithstanding the license issued in favour of the petitioners by respondent No. 2.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submitted that the respondents are not interfering with the day-to-day business of the petitioners, except in cases of contravention of the terms of the license or in circumstances involving other legal violations. It was further submitted that the trade license is issued on an annual basis and remains subject to compliance with the terms of the license and other applicable legal provisions. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners regarding interference was stated to be unfounded.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. Having regard to the submissions advanced, it is directed that, subject to the petitioners’ continued compliance with the conditions of the license and other statutory requirements governing their business, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall refrain from interfering with the petitioners’ day-to-day business operations. However, any regulatory or supervisory action taken by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in strict conformity with law shall remain unaffected.

7. With this direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 19.09.2025 mmr