IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7616 of 2004 BETWEEN: A.P.Private Hospitals & Nursing Homes Association, Krishna District Unit, Vijayawada, Represented by its General Secretary ... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Represented by its Commissioner ...RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.7616 of 2004 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a mandamus declaring the action of respondent in insisting the members of the petitioner’s association to obtain Trade Licences as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Section 521(1)(e) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the HMC Act’) and consequently to direct the respondent not to insist them to obtain Trade Licence. The petitioner is Andhra Pradesh Private Hospitals & Nursing Homes Association, Krishna District Unit, Vijayawada, represented by its General Secretary, Sri M.A. Rahman. According to the petitioner, the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada has not framed any guidelines to regulate the trade or operation of the Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, which may be by fixing the licence fees. Therefore, insisting the petitioner’s association to obtain Trade Licence is violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 521(1)(e) of the HMC Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.P. Bankers & Pawn Brokers’ Association vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1], wherein it is held that unless any terms and conditions are imposed, a trade or operation cannot be subject to requirement of obtaining a licence under Section 521(1)(e) of the HMC Act. A detailed counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. At paragraph No.3 of the counter affidavit, it is asserted that even prior to filing of the writ petition, as early as on 24.01.2001, the Council of Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada approved the guidelines framed by the Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada and given effect to the same from 01.04.2001 vide proceedings Rc.F13-37721/89, dated 23.02.2001, and the power for issuing such guidelines is not in dispute. The power under the provisions of Section 521(1)(e) of the HMC Act, which is mutatis and mutandis, applicable to the Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Therefore, looking from any angle, neither it can be said that the respondents have no power to make the guidelines nor it can be said that there were no guidelines framed at all, as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Once guidelines are available fixing terms and conditions for conducting a trade, obtaining licence is a must. Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is needless to mention that this order is applicable only to the members of the petitioner’s association, who are located within the Municipal Corporation of Vijayawada. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J January 21, 2010 MD [1] 2001 (3) SCC 646