Puli Koti Reddy vs The State Of Ap
2023 Latest Caselaw 2192 AP

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

               WRIT PETITION No.10150 of 2023

JUDGMENT:-

1.    Heard Sri Y. N. Anjaneyacharyulu, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Municipal

Administration for the respondent No.1 and Sri G. Naresh

Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri M. Manohar Reddy,

learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been filed for the following relief:-

"For the foregoing reasons, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in rejecting/cancelling the Application No.94578-2022-AT, dated 08.11.2022 made by the Petitioner for grant of trade license for operating Sri Vishnu Fancy shop in the premises of Door No.48-12-2A, Revenue Ward 2A, Vijayawada, by stating orally that there is a civil suit pending, without issuing the proceedings of rejection order, without giving reasons, as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, and in violation of Sections 521 and 622 of A. P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 including Bye-laws 1973 and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the proceedings of the rejection/cancellation order issued

by the 2nd Respondent and direct the Respondents to grant the permanent trade license to the Petitioner for operating the Sri Vishnu Fancy shop and pass such other order or orders along with all other consequential benefits."

3. The petitioner feels aggrieved from the communication of

the rejection of the petitioner's application for trade license by

the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation (in short, the VMC). The

communication Ex.P1 is dated 28.11.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

reason for such rejection as communicated to the petitioner,

orally, is that there is a dispute pending between the owner of

the property, in the part premises of which the petitioner is

tenant under the lease deed, and the Corporation, in which

O.S.No.2038 of 2022 (Jeereddy Sekhar vs. the Municipal

Corporation) is pending, in the Court of II Additional Junior

Civil Judge - cum - II Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,

Vijayawada and in the said suit there is an order to maintain

the status-quo. He submits that with respect to the building,

the proceedings against the owner were initiated by notice

under Section 452 (1) and the order of confirmation dated

22.10.2022 was also passed by the VMC, and it was thereafter

that O.S.No.2038 of 2022 was filed.

5. Sri Y. N. Anjaneyacharyulu, has placed reliance in the

case of Nuthakki Sri Lakshmi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal

Administration, Hyderabad and others,1 to submit that for

grant of trade license the possession of the applicant need not

be lawful.

6. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused

the material on record.

7. Once the suit is pending and there is an order to maintain

the status-quo, the Municipal Corporation is required to comply

with the said order of a status-quo, which may get affected by

grant of the trade license to the petitioner and thereby

permitting to start trade in the premises in question.

8. In the present case, the question of the petitioner's

possession being lawful or unlawful does not arise, as it is the

case of the petitioner that there is a lease deed executed by the

owner landlord and the petitioner is the tenant.

9. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's trade license,

as submitted by the petitioner's counsel and noted above, is not

that the petitioner's possession is unlawful. Consequently, the

judgment cited, supra, is distinguishable and is of no help to

the petitioner.

2017 (1) ALT 611 (S.B.)

10. Consequently, I do not find any illegality in the order of

rejection.

11. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending,

shall also stand closed.

__________________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 21.04.2023 SCS FFFFFFFFFHGHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGFFFKKKKKKKKKK KKKKJJJJJKFDASDFKKKKLKKLHGGGFFFFFFFDSSSSSGG GGGGGGHHHHHGHFSDAFSDAHLFJHSDFJASD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

WRIT PETITION No.10150 of 2023

Date: 21.04.2023

Scs