[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
The Kukatpally Allopathic Doctors ... vs The State Of Telengana on 16 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.8604 OF 2015
DATE: 16.04.2026
Between:
The Kukatpally Allopathic Doctor's Association,
rep.by its Secretary, Dr G.Madhsudhan, having its
registered Office at MIG-487, I & II phase,
KPHB Colony, Hyderabad.
.... Petitioner
and
The State of Telengana, rep. by Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad
and three others.
.... Respondents
ORDER:
The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to
the respondents not to insist upon a trade license in respect of
Hospitals, Clinics and Medical Establishments run by the members
of the petitioner-Association, and to declare the action of the
respondents in demanding trade license fees for issuance or renewal
of such licenses, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and without
jurisdiction.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a registered
Association of Private Medical Practitioner, who are running
Hospitals and Clinics primarily in Kukatpally village from 09.07.2013
and that the said association was formed with a view to protect the
interest of Doctors and for the welfare of the Doctors in Kukatpally
area, and all the establishments run by the members of the petitioner-
Association are registered with the competent authority under the
Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishment
(Registration and Regulation) Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act'), under
Andhra Pradesh Allopathic Private Medical Care Establishment
(Registration and regulation) and that all private establishment
offering medical care facilities, like hospitals, nursing homes and
clinics, are regulated and monitored by the competent authority
under the said Act, and all such establishments have to be registered
with the competent authority so as to maintain the standards
prescribed under the Act, and the said Act prescribes and regulates
the medical establishments.
3. It is also stated that the said hospitals and clinics deal with the
care of health of the patients and does not involve any act which is
dangerous to life, health or property and also does not create any
nuisance to anyone in the manner, and it is stated that the 3rd
respondent has been insisting for obtaining trade license by clinics
and hospitals and has been demanding license fees for the same, and
though specific representations have been filed before the 3rd
respondent stating that the hospitals and clinics do not come under
the definition of trade, and though this Court held that the hospitals
and clinics are not liable to obtain trade license or pay trade license
fee, the 3rd respondent is still bent upon directing the Clinics and
Hospitals for obtaining trade license and to pay trade fee.
4. Heard Smt. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel for petitioner and
Mr. R.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Medical & Health for respondent Nos.2 and 4, and Mr.
G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.3.
5. Admittedly, the petitioner-Association is running its clinics
and hospitals in various localities, and only the issue that falls for
consideration before this Court is whether the hospitals and clinics
being run for the benefit of the patients are coming under the
purview of trade under Section 521(1)(e)(ii) and (2) of the GHMC
Act, 1995, so as to invoke the powers of Commissioner under Section
521 of GHMC Act, 1955, and the said issue has been already dealt by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.P.Bankers @ Pawn Brokers'
Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad1 as to trade
license requirement is to regulate trades affecting public health,
(2001) 3 SCC 646
safety and nuisance, and held that Municipal authorities can insist
upon a license only in cases where regulation is required for the
purpose of control, regulation and imposing conditions, and where
no trade shall be carried on without a license so as to enable
regulation by the Commissioner.
6. For better understanding and brevity, Section 521 of the
GHMC Act, is extracted as under:
"S. 521. Certain things not to be kept and certain trades and operations not
to be carried on, without a license.
(1) Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions
of a licence granted by the Commissioner no person shall -
(a) to (d) xxxxxx
(e) carry on, or allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises -
(i) xxxxx
(ii) any trade or operation which in the opinion of the
Commissioner is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create a
nuisance either from its nature, or by reason of the manner in which, or
the conditions under which, the same, is or is proposed to be carried on;
xxxx
(2) A person shall be deemed to have known that a trade or
operation is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, dangerous or likely to
create a nuisance within the meaning of paragraph (ii) of clause (e) of sub-
section (1), after written notice to that effect, signed by the Commissioner
has been served on such person or affixed to the premises to which it
relates."
xxxxxx
7. Further, in the instant case, the Medical Establishments though
run for care of health of patients, nonetheless such establishments, it
involves public health, sanitation and biomedical waste disposal,
which have an impact on the public health if the bio-waste is not
disposed properly, and as such, they fall within the category of
regulable trades and thus, licenses can be validly insisted.
8. In that view of the matter, the writ petitioner, being a Medical
Association stated to be running clinics and hospitals, cannot be
exempted from obtaining a trade licence, and the Commissioner,
GHMC, has the power under Section 521 of the GHMC Act, 1955,
and the principle is also fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers' Association (supra). Thus, in the
considered view of this Court, the medical establishments, such as
hospitals and clinics which produce bio-waste, sanitation etc.,
directly affect public health, requires a trade licence. However, the
clinics and other establishments which do not produce any bio-waste
and does not require sanitary requirements will not require any trade
licence. The Commissioner has to determine the same by proper
inspection and enquiry, and as such, all the medical establishments
have to be examined separately under Section 521 of the GHMC Act,
1955. Thus, the writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed.
9. Therefore, for the above stated findings, the writ petitioner has
not made out any case, and the Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed.
10. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous
applications if any shall stand closed.
________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO,J
Date: 16.04.2026
kkm
