APHC010599532016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15977 OF 2016 Between: M/s.Kalanikethan Silks Pvt Ltd & Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Gvmc Commissioner Vsp Dist Anot and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M S TIRUMALA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 15977 OF 2016 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief: “…..to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing trade license fee upon the petitioners 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, 522, 528, 529, 539, 623, 625, 622 and 596 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, which was made applicable to the respondents by Sec.71 of the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act (Act 19 of 1979) do not apply to the petitioners shops and pass such other orders....” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the Petitioners are doing business in selling of sarees and 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 1st Petitioner to pay Rs. 28,880/-; 2nd Petitioner to pay Rs 31,200/- and demanded the 3rd Petitioner to pay for payment of trade license fee for the financial year 2016-17. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, 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 power to insist for Trade License, unless it is come under purview of Section 403, 404, 624 and 625 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 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 order of this Court dated 21.07.2015 passed in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch and the impugned notice for imposing Trade License fee by the Respondents against the petitioners is hereby set aside. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07.04.2025 KK