Disposed

Mamidi Ramesh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC6 Dec 2016WP/25840/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held it cannot fix the licence fee for a goat bazaar but permitted the petitioner to submit a representation regarding the disparity in fees compared to the adjacent Gram Panchayat for the authority to review.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to submit a representation to the Municipality regarding the licence fee disparity within three weeks; authority directed to decide within two months.

Mamidi Ramesh Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh — Landlord and Tenant | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶4

Writ Petition No.25840 of 2009

¶5

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of the 2^nd respondent-Municipality, in allowing the 3^rd respondent to conduct a goat bazaar in Mancherial Municipality on an annual licence fee of Rs.75,000/-, as arbitrary and illegal.

¶7

Sri Venkateswar Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, in the adjoining Vempally Gram Panchayat, the licence fee being collected for the goat bazaar is Rs.2,01,000/-; when the Gram Panchayat itself is collecting more than Rs.2,00,000/-, there is no justification for the 2^nd respondent, a Municipality, to permit the 3^rd respondent to run a goat bazaar on payment of a measly sum of Rs.75,000/- as licence fees; and the Municipality should be directed to enhance the annual licence fee for a sum in excess of Rs.2,01,000/being collected by the Vempally Gram Panchayat.

¶8

While the purpose in filing the writ petition is no doubt laudable, as it intends to ensure an increase in revenue to the Municipality, the quantum of licence fee to be collected for a goat bazaar is for the Municipality to decide; and this Court would not fix the licence fee in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶9

As the Gram Panchayat is said to be collecting a higher licence fee which, according to Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi learned counsel for the petitioner, is nearly thrice the amount being collected by the Mancherial Municipality, we consider it appropriate to permit the petitioner to submit a representation to the 2^nd respondent in this regard within three weeks from today. On such a representation being submitted, the 2^nd respondent shall examine the representation and take a decision thereupon, at the earliest and, in any event, within two months from the

¶10

date of the receipt of the representation. The decision taken by the 2^nd respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner.

¶11

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶13

_____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶14

06^th December, 2016 JSU

¶15

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶16

AND

¶17

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶18

Writ Petition No.25840 of 2009

¶19

Date: 06.12.2016

¶20

JSU

Mamidi Ramesh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Ramesh v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Parma Vs Chavva Anthaiah

The Osmania University, Vs Penumur Menaka

Gkc Projects Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented

Simhadri Suryanarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

The Mahila Vikasa Mutually Aided Cooperative Thrift Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gummadi Bhima Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh