Disposed¶34

Mnm Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (Manish), v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Andhra Pradesh HC9 Apr 2025WP/10645/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trade license fee demand notice; Vijayawada Municipal Corporation; MNM Marketing Pvt Ltd.; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 - Sections 403, 404, 516, 521, 539, 586, 588, 589, 622, 623, 624, 625; Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 - Section 7; Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 226 of the Constitution of India; W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch (dated 21.07.2015) followed; writ disposed of in terms of earlier order; impugned notice set aside; Rs.1,06,530/- for FY 2014-15; Nyapathy Vijay, J.; decided 10.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice imposing Trade License fee on the petitioner set aside; Writ Petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 21.07.2015 in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand closed. ¶34

Mnm Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (Manish), Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of the respondents in imposing trade license fee upon the petitioner's readymade garments shop is arbitrary, illegal, void and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, and whether the invoked sections of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (applicable via Section 7 of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981) apply to the petitioner's shop.

¶27

Court's answer

In view of the unrefuted position, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order of this Court dated 21.07.2015 in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch, and the impugned notice imposing Trade License fee on the petitioner is set aside, with no order as to costs.

¶34

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the Court's earlier ruling in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch (which the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Corporation did not refute), the Respondent Corporation does not have the power to insist for Trade License unless the establishment comes under the purview of Sections 403, 404, 624 and 625 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; accordingly the demand of trade license fee from the petitioner fails.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Nyapathy Vijay, J.), in W.P. No. 10645 of 2015 (MNM Marketing Pvt Ltd. v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Others): A writ petition under Article 226 challenged a demand notice for Rs.1,06,530/- towards trade license fee for FY 2014-15 imposed on the petitioner's readymade garments shop. Counsel relied on the Court's earlier order dated 21.07.2015 in W.P.No.9583 of 2012 and batch, which held that the Respondent Corporation does not have the power to insist for Trade License unless the establishment falls within Sections 403, 404, 624 and 625 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (made applicable by Section 7 of the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Act, 1981); the Learned Standing Counsel did not refute this. Following that ruling, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the earlier order, set aside the impugned notice imposing Trade License fee, made no order as to costs, and closed pending miscellaneous applications, if any.

¶1

APHC010142292015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

[3460]

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 10645/2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

MNM Marketing Pvt Ltd., (MANISH)

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.M S TIRUMALA RANI

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.T BALASWAMI

¶19

¶20

The Court made the following:

¶21

¶22

VN, J WP_10645_2015

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO: 10645 OF 2015

¶25

ORDER :

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

¶27

“…..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....”

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

¶31

VN, J WP_10645_2015

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent Corporation does not

¶33

refute the same.

¶34

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.

¶35

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶36

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶37

Date: 10.04.2025

¶38

Vjl

Mnm Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (Manish), v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mnm Marketing Pvt. Ltd., (Manish), v. The Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Venkateswara Rao, E.G.Dist Vs State of Ap & 4 Others

Sri M. Sarveswara Rao Vs The State of Ap

K Hussain Basha Vs the State of Ap

A Appala Swamy Vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Dept. & Ano.

St. Lutheran Church, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. a.Prameela Vs The State of A.P.