APHC010142292015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10645/2015 Between: MNM Marketing Pvt Ltd., (MANISH) ...PETITIONER AND The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M S TIRUMALA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2. The Court made the following: 2 VN, J WP_10645_2015 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 10645 OF 2015 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing trade license fee, upon the petitioner shop as arbitrary, illegal, void and violative of Art 14, 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India and Sec 521 Sub-sec 22 of Sec. 586, 588 and 589 and further declare that Sec.516, 521, 539, 622 and 623 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (which was applicable by Sec.7 of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981) do not apply to the petitioner shop and pass such other orders....” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is doing business in selling of readymade garments, having obtained necessary permissions from various departments, by paying all requisite fees. However, the Respondent Corporation had issued demand notice calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,06,530/- towards trade license fee for the financial year 2014-15. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch, dated 21.07.2015 wherein this Court held that the Respondent Corporation does not have the power to insist for Trade License, unless it comes under the purview of Sections 403, 404, 624 and 625 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 3 VN, J WP_10645_2015 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Corporation does not refute the same. 5. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 21.07.2015 passed in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch and the impugned notice imposing Trade License fee by the Respondents against the petitioner is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 10.04.2025 Vjl