IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1853 of 2008 Between: Abdul Salam S/o.Late Abdul Subhan, R/o.H.No.13-106 to 109 (Harijanawada), Indira Nagar, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Dharmavaram Municipality, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, Order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not renewing the license to carrying Beef business in the S.No.409 situated between Railway Track, Dharmavaram and Burial Ground as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India, and further direct the Respondent herein to renew the license to running Beef shop in favour of the petitioner forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SAI PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1853 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri B.Abdul Salam with a prayer to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not renewing the licence to carry on Beef business in Sy.No.409 situated between Railway Track, Dharmavaram, and burial ground as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. 2. This is second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, he ﬁled Writ Petition No.12753 of 2004 when the respondent failed to renew the licence to carry on Beef business for the year 2004-05. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 22.07.2004. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “In view of the fact that the petitioner was already granted a licence for the previous years and doing the business, the respondents are hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on the requisition made by the petitioner for renewal of his licence. If the respondent notiﬁed any area, where such business being carried out and continuing the business in the premises not permissible under the byelaws of the Municipality, it is always open to the respondent to intimate the same to the petitioner. Till such an order, the respondent shall not interfere with the petitioner’s business.” 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he made a representation to the respondent by enclosing the copy of the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.12753 of 2004 requesting for renewal of his licence for the year 2004-05, but the respondents have not passed any orders on his representation. 4. The respondent entered appearance and ﬁled the counter affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying on the business in sale of Beef in the premises bearing No.17/533-B situated at the outskirts of Dharmavaram town, and because of non-renewal of licence, he discontinued the said business. A further submission has been made that Sy.No.409 is convenient and, therefore, the petitioner seeks direction to permit him to carry on the business in sale of Beef in Sy.No.409. 7. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that 20 cents of land has been identiﬁed and allotted for slaughtering and sale of Beef in IDSMT site in L.P.No.230/91/IDSMT and the same was intimated to the petitioner under letter Roc.No.1766/2004/F1, dated 19.01.2005. Para 6 of the counter aﬃdavit details the communication sent to the petitioner and it reads as hereunder:- “It is respectfully submitted that, keeping in view the directions of this Hon’ble Court in the above said Writ Petition and also keeping in view the resistance of the public of Indira Nagar against the killing of the cattle and selling of the Beef, the Municipality resolved in its Resolution No.306 dated 31.12.2004 that the sale of Beef is prohibited in the entire Town of Dharmavaram, except at the site allotted by the Municipality for the said purpose. Accordingly, the Municipality allotted a site in an extent of Acs.0.20 cents for slaughtering and sale of beef in the IDSMT site in L.P.No.230/91/IDSMT. The same was intimated to the petitioner herein through a letter bearing Roc.No.1766/2004/F1, dated 19.01.2005. The petitioner doesn’t want to do his business at the site allotted to him as said above. However, he wants to continue his business at a place in Sy.No.409 stating that, it is situated between Railway Track and Hindu Burial Ground and is far away from the Town. In fact, the said place where he wants to do his said business is not isolated one. It is on the main road which leads to Dharmavaram to Anantapur and is very near to residents to Gandhi Nagar, Raghavendra Swamy Temple lane and Kalyanamandapam. As said above, the petitioner is supposed to do his business at the place allotted by the Municipality. He is not permitted to do his business either at Indira Nagar or at the place in Sy.No.409. However, he is still insisting for renewal of his license to continue his business in these areas which are not permissible.” 8. Since the petitioner has already been intimated with regard to allotment of a site in an extent of 20 cents for slaughtering and sale of beef in IDSMT site in L.P.No.230/91/IDSMT, he cannot insist for renewal of licence to carry on business in sale of Beef in the premises bearing No.17/533-B. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _​_______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 31.07.2008 v v