IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12789 of 2009 Between: 1 Ch.Suryanarayana S/o.Subba Rao Navata Road Tansport D.No.7-3-101 R.S Mada Street,Tirupathi,Chittoor District 2 B.Shyamsunder S/o.Ramachandra Naidu D.No.7-1-121 R.N Mada Street,Tirupathi,Chittoor District 3 B.Rajasekhar S/o. Ramachandra Naidu D.No.7-1-21 R.N Mada Street,Tirupathi Chittoor District 4 M.Surender Reddy S/o Sidda Reddy D.No.93 R.S Mada Street,Tirupathi Chittoor District ..... PETITIONERS AND The Commissioner Tirupathi Municipal Corporation,Tirupathi,Chittoor 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 will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the shops bearing D.No.7-3-01 and 93 situated at R.S Mada Street and D.Nos 7-1-17,7-1-21 situated R.N Meda Street Tirupathi Chittoor District in which the petitioners are carrying on transport business without following any due process of law is wholly illegal, arbitrary violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the constitution of India and consequently declare that the petitioners are entitled to run their transport business in the shops bearing D.No.7-3- 101,7-1-17,7-1-21 and 93 situated at R.S Meda Street Tirupathi Chittoor District. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAVI KONDAVEETI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12789 of 2009 O R D E R : The petitioners herein are transport agents who are running their business at R.S.Mada Street, Tirupati. It is claimed that they were granted trade licences by the respondent-Municipal Corporation and the same were being renewed from time to time. However, the respondent refused to receive the licence fees from the year 2006 onwards. Moreover, on the basis of a false complaint made by one B.V.Ratnam Naidu and others alleging that the transport business of the petitioners was causing inconvenience to the public, the respondent-Corporation started taking steps to close the business of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed W.P.No.18348 of 2006 and the same was disposed of by this Court by order dated 08.09.2006 granting liberty to the petitioners to make appropriate representations to the Corporation in which event, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Though the petitioners made representations, the respondent-Corporation failed to pass any orders thereupon. In the meanwhile, the said B.V.Ratnam Naidu filed W.P.No.703 of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the corporation in taking action for closure of the shops of the petitioners. While the matter stands thus, the respondent-Corporation on 24.06.2009 had illegally seized and sealed the business premises of the petitioners and the petitioners were not allowed even to take out the articles kept in the shops. Aggrieved by the said action, this writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned seizure without any notice to the petitioners and without following due process of law is arbitrary and illegal. It is also pleaded that so many consignments belonging to the public including medicines, essential goods and other goods, which are perishable in nature are kept in the business premises of the petitioners and they were not even permitted to remove the said consignments before seizing the premises. Consequently, the petitioners are unable to deliver the consignments and therefore, the whole action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation stating that the transport business being carried on at R.S.Mada Street, Tirupati by the petitioners is causing much inconvenience to the public especially during Utsavams. It is also pointed out that the petitioners were not granted any trade licences and in W.P.No.703 of 2009, the respondent-Corporation was directed by this Court to submit a report explaining the steps taken by the Corporation for removal or shifting of the petitioners’ transport companies. Having come to know the said direction, the writ petitioners sought some time to vacate their respective shops by taking away all the goods kept in the shops. Accordingly, after the goods and other articles were taken away, the Municipal staff closed and seized the shops in question under panchanama. Suppressing the above facts, the petitioners approached this Court alleging that the shops were closed and seized forcibly. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Admittedly, the petitioners are not possessing any valid trade licence to run their business in R.S.Mada street, Tirupati as on today. The counter affidavit shows that the petitioners were given ample time to remove the consignments kept in their business premises and according to the respondent-Corporation all their belongings and consignments were removed before the premises was sealed by the Corporation. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation under instructions further stated that on a further request made by the petitioners, the Corporation had permitted them to take out some other goods from the premises in question on 08.07.2009 and the shops were again sealed. However, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since the petitioners are running their business from 1982 onwards and never committed default in payment of licence fees the action of the Corporation in refusing renewal of trade licences from 2007 onwards is arbitrary and illegal. May be that the petitioners are desirous to carry on the business in the premises in question, however, the fact remains that no trade licence as such is granted to them. If they are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Corporation in not granting trade licence, it is for them to work out the appropriate remedy available under law before the competent forum. As on today, since there is no valid trade licence in their favour, the action of the respondents in prohibiting them from carrying on the business cannot be held to be arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Dated:14-07-2009 KLP