IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 5802 of 2009 Between: Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Limited, Now Known as M/s. Hyderabad Industries Limited, Having its Regd. Office at Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Company Secretary. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Deputy Commissioner, Circle No. 10, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ, direction or order, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the letter No. 683/TC 10/T5/GHMC/2008 dated 12-03-2009 issued by the third respondent and the notice of demand dated 24-02-2009 issued under the seal of the second respondent are arbitrary, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and also of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the respondents not to collect any tax under the said notices or orders and pass such other and further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. R. RAGHUNANDAN Counsel for the Respondents: MRS. KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has submitted a complaint before the respondent No.2 on the subject matter of the petition. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said complaint, which has been filed under Section 221 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, shall be considered as soon as possible, and preferably within a period of two weeks from today. 3. In the circumstances, it is directed that the complaint filed by the petitioner shall be considered by respondent No.2 as soon as possible and till the complaint is finally disposed of, there shall not be any recovery in respect of the tax, which is the subject matter of the said complaint, by coercive method. 4. In view of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 02-04-2009 bnr