IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 382 of 2002 Between: A.P.Private Hospitals & Nursing Homes Association APNA, rep. By its General Secretary. ..... PETITIONER AND Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation .....RESPONDENT 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 of Mandamus, or such other writ, order or direction declaring the proceedings in Rc.1597/2000/F10 dated 12-02-2001 at Sl.No.119 with trade number 42 in the Annexure 1 as illegal, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 521 (1) (e) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act read with Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act and to issue a consequential direction forbearing the respondent and its officers from insisting for trade licence upon the members of the petitioner association. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SREERAMACHANDRA MURTHY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.T.S.VENKATARAMANA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking to issue a writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.1597/2000/F10 dated 12- 02-2001 at Sl.No.119 with trade number 42 in the Annexure 1 as illegal, violative of Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Section 521 (1) (e) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act read with Viskhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act and to issue a consequential direction forbearing the respondent and its officers from insisting for trade licence upon the members of the petitioner association. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation. This writ petition has been filed by the A.P. Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes Association APNA Regd.No.1223, Visakhapatnam District Branch, represented by its General Secretary Dr.G.K. Viswanatham, Visakhapatnam, questioning the action of the respondent Corporation in seeking to impose licence fee in respect of the petitioner’s nursing homes. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for in the writ petition is covered by the judgment rendered in W.P. Nos.6253 of 1992, 15192 of 1993 and 9596 of 1995, dated 20-11-2002 by this Court, wherein this Court disposed of the writ petitions by passing the following order: “However, without going into the merits and demerits of the respective contentions, the impugned notification directing the petitioners to obtain licences to carry on their profession must held to be invalid for the reason that the Corporation did not frame the necessary terms and conditions of the licences in order to regulate and control the activities that are being carried on by the petitioners. This is the view taken by the Apex Court in A.P.Bankers & Pawn Borkers’ Association Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (supra). In the light of the said decision of the Apex Court, it would be mandatory on the part of the respondent-Corporation to frame appropriate terms and conditions to regulate the trade or professionthat is being carried on by the petitioners before insisting the petitioners to obtain licences, for the purposes of Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. In that view of the matter, the issue is remitted back to the respondent- Corporation with a direction to reconsider the same in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in A.P.Bankers & Pawn Brokers’ Association’s case (supra) and frame appropriate terms and conditions which may be fixed by the licence and thereafter take appropriate action in the matter. Till compliance of the above direction, the respondent-Corporation shall not insist the petitioners to obtain licences in terms of the notification issued by the respondent- Corporation. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.” Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation submits that the relief sought for in the writ petition is covered by the judgment dated 20-11-2002 passed in the writ petitions referred to above and he has no objection to disposed of this writ petition in terms of the judgment referred to above. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and taking note of the judgment dated 20-11-2002 made in the writ petitions referred to above, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is also disposed of remitting the matter to the respondent Corporation with a direction to reconsider the same in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers’ Association’s case (supra) and frame appropriate terms and conditions which may be fixed by the licence and thereafter take appropriate action in the matter. Till such compliance of the above direction, the respondent-Corporation shall not insist the petitioner to obtain licence in terms of the notification issued by the respondent Corporation. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the judgment dated 20-11-2002 made in the writ petitions referred to above. There shall be no order as to costs. JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 27-04-2009 LSK