Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23059 (AP)

The Krishna District Whole Sale v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

WP/4326/2017 · 2025-04-16

Nyapathy Vijay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010324872017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4326/2017 Between: The Krishna District Whole Sale and Others The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. A KALPANA JYOTI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. T S VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 4326/2017 The Krishna District Whole Sale and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): A KALPANA JYOTI Counsel for the Respondent: T S VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following: [3460] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY ...PETITIONER(S) ...RESPONDENT 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.4326 of 2017 ORDER: The present Writ Petition is filed seeking for the following relief: “to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent herein in insisting obtaining of trade licenses from the petitioners its members and the consequential demand for payment of trade license fee as illegal arbitrary without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 as applicable to the respondent corporation and consequently direct the respondent not to demand I insist the petitioners and its members to pay trade license fee and pass” 2. On 07.4.2025, there was no representation for the petitioner. Similarly today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. It shows that the petitioner has no interest in prosecuting the Writ Petition. 3. In view of the same, the Writ Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J 16.4.2025 TJN 3 131 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WP No. 4326 of 2017 Dt.16-4-2025 TJN