Petitioners challenged eviction notices under Section 263 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965. The Court held that since vending vegetables is not specified in Schedule IV of the Act, the notices are invalid and were set aside.
Notices dated 5-10-1998 issued for stopping business of vending vegetables are set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 28506 of 1998
Dated 8th June, 2007
Between
B.Lateef Saheb and ors
…Petitioners
and
Srikalahasti Municipality, rep. By its Commissioner, Srikalahasti, Chittoor Dist
…Respondent.
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 28506 of 1998
ORDER:
In this Writ Petition, the petitioners have questioned the final notices issued by the Commissioner, Srikalahasti Municipality for eviction of the petitioners from the places where they are doing business in vending of vegetables.
It is the case of the petitioners that no licence is required under the provisions of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965 for doing business in vending vegetables and as per the provision under Section 263 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965, vegetables are not notified in Schedule IV to Section 263 of the Act.
At the stage of admission, this Court has passed interim order on 13-10-1998 and the said order continued all along.
Though Writ Petition is of the year 1998, no counter affidavit is filed.
Under Section 263 of the A.P. Municipalities Act 1965, the Municipal Council is empowered to publish a notification in the prescribed manner that no place within the municipal limits or at a distance of three kilometers of such limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule IV without the licence of the Commissioner and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein. From a reading of the above said provision, it is clear that even municipal council is empowered to publish a notification prohibiting usage of any place for the purposes specified in the Schedule without obtaining the licence and confining the place for usage for the purposes specified in Schedule IV to Section 263 of the Act. Though it is the specific case of the petitioners that the business in vending vegetables is not notified, the same is not controverted by filing any counter affidavit. Further, I have perused the Schedule IV to Section 263 of the Act, wherein business in vending of vegetables is not specified in the said schedule. In that view of the matter, impugned notices are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, notices dated 5-10-1998 issued to the petitioners for stopping of their business of vending vegetables in their premises are set aside. But, however, it is made clear that if the said purposes are notified in the Schedule subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, this order will not preclude the respondent to issue fresh notice and pass appropriate orders.
The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No
order as to costs.
---------------------------------JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
DATE: 08-06-2007. Msnr.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether eviction notices issued under Section 263 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 are valid when vending of vegetables is not notified under the said section.
Whether the absence of a counter affidavit enables the Court to conclude that the vegetable vending is not notified under Schedule IV.
Whether the eviction notices should be set aside given that vegetable vending does not fall under Schedule IV.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B. Lateef Saheb and ors
Srikalahasti Municipality
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
