This court dismissed the writ petition seeking declaration against the collection of Thai Bazaar fee. The court held it was not a fit case to admit the petition as a suit on the same cause of action was already pending, preventing parallel remedies.
The Writ Petition is dismissed; miscellaneous petitions, if any, are also dismissed.
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.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19444 of 2012
Dated:04.07.2012
Between: Uppala Vishwanatham, And others.
…Petitioners
And
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others.
…Respondents
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19444 of 2012
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking a direction by way of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in collecting Thai Bazaar fee from the petitioners as illegal and arbitrary.
In the affidavit accompanying the writ petition it is stated that the petitioners are tenants in Kamadhenuvu Society and
Annapurna Complex in premises bearing H.Nos.1-4-131 and 4-1-151, and running their business in the name and style of M/s.Raja Rajeshwari Kirana Merchants, M/s.A.R.Traders, Bhagyodaya Traders etc. In this writ petition it is the case of the petitioners that the shops in which they are doing business are not within the market area and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled to collect any market fee/Thai Bazaar fee.
When the matter had come up on earlier occasion, it was adjourned to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions. On instructions, it is admitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents that the rights for collection of fee was auctioned by the Corporation and the third respondent is the successful bidder, who is authorized to collect the Thai Bazaar fee. It is submitted that when the third respondent was taking steps for collection of such fee, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.48 of 2012 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, and obtained injunction orders in I.A.No.107 of 2012 and such suit is still pending consideration.
At this stage, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are not parties to the suit, as such they filed the present writ petition. With regard to the same cause of action of collection of Thai Bazaar fee, the petitioners have already filed the suit. There is no reason to entertain this writ petition to consider the very same issue. If respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not impleaded as party respondents, it is open to the petitioners to take steps for their impleadment. But, having filed the suit questioning the validity of the third
respondent to collect such fee, and when the said suit is pending consideration, the petitioner cannot file this writ petition by pursuing two remedies parallelly.
For the aforesaid reasons, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to admit the writ petition for grant of relief as prayed for.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the validity of collection by the respondents, and it is open to the civil Court to examine the same independently. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------------------------------------(JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY)
04.07.2012 vs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking direction to declare the collection of Thai Bazaar fee as illegal can be admitted when a suit on the same cause of action is pending.
Uppala Vishwanatham, And others.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration And Urban Development, Secretariat, Hyderabad, And others.
R. Subhash Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
