APHC010761632015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 5978/2015 Between: Vemuluri Nagabhushanam, Krishna Dist ...PETITIONER AND Commissioner Vijayawada Municipal Corp Krishna Dist Ano and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M S TIRUMALA RANI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. T BALASWAMI 2. 2 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…to issue an appropriate writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in imposing advance trade license fee, upon the petitioner godown & office at D.No.27-33-2, Gudavalli vari Street, Vijayawada, 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 Corporations Act, 1955, (which was made applicable to the respondents by Sec.14 of the A.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1994) do not apply to the godown a office of Kalaniketan Silks Pvt Ltd., and pass such other order or orders…” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is 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 petitioner to pay Rs.16,597/- towards Advance Trade License fee for the financial year 2015-16. 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 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. 3 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 Advance Trade License fee by the Respondents against the petitioner is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.04.2025 KBN 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 84 WRIT PETITION NO: 5978/2015 Date: 09.04.2025 KBN