1 APHC010067552025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 3539/2025 Between: Gangupamu Suresh ...PETITIONER AND The State of A.P. and others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V V SATISH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following: 2 ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “.... to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in RC.No.1086/2024/P.H/Ward-72/GWK/Zone-VI dated 16.01.2025 issued by the 2nd respondent and the consequential orders issued by the 3rd respondent in Rc.No.1086/2024/PH/Ward-72/GWK/Zone-VI dated 01.2.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the same…...” 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (a) The petitioner has been running a Gym Centre under the name and style of “S.S.Fitness World” in the premises bearing D.No.10-3-1/3, 60 feet road, Ward No.72, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam since 2019, in pursuance of the lease deed entered with the owner of the said premises i.e., Sri N.Lakshmipathi Raju who is the 4th respondent herein. In view of the disputes between the petitioner and his landlord i.e., 4th respondent, the petitioner was constrained to file O.S.NO.484 of 2022 on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka seeking permanent injunction against the 4th respondent, wherein the Civil Court granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner vide orders dated 26.12.2022. In pursuance of the said orders, the petitioner is in possession of the said Gym Center. (b) Thereafter, the 3rd respondent issued a notice in Rc.No.1086/2024/F1/PH-VI/Zone-VI/GVMC dated 26.09.2024 alleging that the petitioner is running a fitness centre without obtaining permission from the 2nd respondent in contravention to the provisions of Section 521 and 596 of 3 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Challenging which, the petitioner filed W.P.No.25330 of 2024 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 07.11.2024, with the following direction: “In view of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to submit his explanation in detail enclosing all the necessary documents in support of his claim to the above said notice of the 3rd respondent dated 26.09.2024 within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On receipt of the same, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall proceed with the necessary enquiry strictly in accordance with law pursuant to the above said notice dated 26.09.2024 treating it as only notice by the 2nd respondent and upon hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner and the 4th respondent specifically, upon verification of the records and the subject shop/premises/activity, appropriate decision shall be taken on its own merits by the 2nd respondent as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight (08) weeks thereafter. Pending the above said enquiry there shall not be any coercive action and subject to outcome of the same, the activity of the petitioner shall be permitted as per law and pending the enquiry, the petitioner is permitted to run the Gym in the subject premises.” (c) In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court on 07.11.2024, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 30.11.2024 stating that the Gym, which is a fitness centre, does not fall within the activities enumerated under Section 521 of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. But, inspite of the same, respondent No.2 has issued the impugned order vide Rc.No.1086/2024/P.H/Ward-72/GWIK/Zone-VI, dated 16.01.2025, which was served on the petitioner on 21.01.2025, directing the petitioner to submit new lease agreement, Aadhar Card, property tax clearance, ASN and other documents related to the SS Fitness Centre to their office, and then, a new trade license will be issued to the petitioner fitness centre within a period of seven (07) days from the receipt of the said notice. Challenging which, the present writ petition is filed. 4 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is challenging the impugned proceedings on two grounds, the first one is that in view of the pendency of the suit filed by the petitioner as against his landlord i.e., 4th respondent herein in O.S.No.484 of 2022 the petitioner is not in a position to furnish new lease agreement and secondly, the fitness centre does not fall within the activities enumerated under Section 521 of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. 4. For better appreciation of the case, Section 521 (1) sub Section (e) (ii) and sub Section 4 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, is extracted hereunder: 521. Certain things not to be kept and certain trades and operations not to be carried on, without a license. (1) Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Commissioner, no person shall – (a) ......... (e) carry on, or allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises – (i) ....... (ii) any trade or operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature, or by reason of the manner in which, or the conditions under which, the same, is or is proposed to be carried on; 5. From the reading of the above provision, it is clear that the Commissioner is the competent authority to issue license for carrying on any trade or operations specified in the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The said provision also makes it clear that the opinion of the Commissioner is relevant while issuing the trade license. 5 6. The Commissioner is insisting the petitioner to furnish certain documents including the new lease agreement for issuing a new trade license which is fact would not be possible for the petitioner in view of the disputes between the petitioner and his land lord and in view of the pendency of O.S No.484 of 2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon a order in W.P Nos.37156 of 2015 and 12547 of 2016 wherein while considering the issue whether under similar circumstances the respondents are can insist to produce a new lease deed, the Court held as under: “20. Even otherwise, what is required is proof that the applicant is in use and occupation of the subject premises. Thus, submission of lease deed is not mandatory but is one of the documents required to prove use and occupation. By producing injunction order granted by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, made in I.A.No.445 of 2014 in O.S.No.1760 of 2014, petitioner proved that he is in use and possession/occupation of the subject property. The 3rd respondent also does not dispute use and possession by petitioner. The burden of song on behalf of 3rd respondent is, the possession vested in petitioner is not „lawful possession‟ and, therefore, not entitled to seek renewal. As noticed above, for the purpose of consideration of application for renewal of trade licence, „lawful possession‟ as sought to be contended by learned counsel for 3rd respondent is not the requirement and it is not on that ground, the request of petitioner for grant of renewal was not processed. Thus, in terms of decision of this Court in W.P.No.5472 of 1983 and on close reading of clause 3(2)(b) of Bye-Laws, 1973 insisting to produce lease deed by the 2nd respondent is erroneous and on that ground, the Commissioner cannot refuse to process the application submitted by petitioner for renewal of his trade licence.” 7. It is an admitted fact that because of the dispute between the petitioner and the unofficial respondent No.4, who is none other than the land lord of the property in which the petitioner is currently running a gym centre. The 6 petitioner was constrained to file O.S No.484 of 2022 wherein he could succeed in obtaining a temporary injunction order on 26.12.2022. In such circumstances, no land lord would execute a new lease deed in favour of the petitioner including the 4th respondent herein. Even in view of the order dated 21.12.2016 passed in W.P Nos.37156 of 2015 and 12547 of 2016, this Court feels it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting trade license without insisting on a new lease agreement. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit all the required documents as requested by the Commissioner/respondent No.2, except new lease agreement and the same may be considered for issuance of trade license without insisting for lease agreement. 9. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date: 12.02.2025 KGR