Fertilizers, Pesticides And Seed ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2021 Latest Caselaw 1860 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1860 AP
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Fertilizers, Pesticides And Seed ... vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 April, 2021

Bench: Cheekati Manavendranath Roy

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                       WRIT PETITION Nos.6647, 6802
                             and 6819 of 2021

COMMON ORDER:-

         Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Manohar

Reddy and Sri N.Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents - Municipality.

These Writ Petitions are filed seeking declaration that the

action of the respondents in issuing demand notices dated

25.01.2020, 21.01.2020 and 19.01.2020 to the petitioners levying

trade licence fee as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and

contrary to the provisions of Section 263 of the A.P. Municipalities

Act, 1965, and consequently to set aside the demand notices issued

by the respondents.

These are covered matters in view of the earlier orders passed

by this Court in Writ Petition No.26242 of 2000 and batch. When

similar demand notices levying of trade licence fee were issued to

the petitioner therein, the same were challenged before this Court

on the ground that the respondents have no jurisdiction and they

are not competent to issue any such notices.

This Court held in the case of Fertilizers, Pesticides and

Seeds Dealers Welfare Association, Suryapet Vs. Municipal

Council, Suryapet Municipality1 in Writ Petition 26242 of 2000

and batch, at para No.9, as follows :-

"Section 328 of the Act empowers the Government to alter, add or cancel Schedules-I to IV of the Act. Sub-section (2) thereof further requires the Government to introduce the notification altering the schedules before the legislative assembly during the next session of the assembly following the date of issue of notification. Therefore amending Schedule IV is a legislative

2006 (2) ALT 108

function, which cannot be usurped by the Municipal Council or the Municipal Commissioner. In respect of any item of business or category of business, which is not specifically found in Entries (a) to (v) of Schedule IV, Municipal Council cannot impose trade licence fee unless and until proper procedure is followed under Section 328 of the Act. The possibility of the Government amending or altering Schedule IV in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 328 - which is always available to them - does not in any manner validate the resolution of the Municipal Council, which is beyond its powers. Therefore insofar as these writ petitions are concerned, the petitioners are justified in contending that the business -which their members are carrying on - is not within any of the categories of the business in Schedule IV of the Act."

The ratio laid in the above judgment squarely applies to the

present facts of the case. Till now, the Government did not take any

steps for amending or altering Schedule IV in accordance with the

procedure contemplated under Section 328 of the Act. Therefore, it

is not within the competence of the respondent - Municipality to

make any such demand for payment of trade licence fee from the

petitioners. So, in view of the law laid down in the aforesaid

judgment of this Court, the impugned demand notices are not valid

for want of competency to issue the same.

Therefore, the Writ Petitions are allowed declaring that the

impugned demand notices issued to the petitioners levying trade

licence fee is without any authority and jurisdiction and the same