IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 16836 of 2008 Between: Namburi Bose BabuS/o. Srinivasa Rao Pattebad, Eluru, W.G. District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Eluru Rep. by its Commissioner , Eluru, W.G. District. 2 The District Collector, , Eluru, W.G. District. 3 The Standing Committee, Rep. by its Chairman Municipal Corporation of Eluru, Eluru, W.G. District. .....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 order or direction in the nature of writ of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the action of the respondents in not disposing the representations made by the petitioner dt.24.10.2007, 5.12.2007, 25.3.2008 and 29.7.2008 by allowing the petitioner to continue to collect the Municipal Tax beyond one year as per Agreement dt.4.8.2007 as arbitrary illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14, 19 (1)(G) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith dispose the representations of the petitioner dt. 24- 10-2007, 5-12-2007, 25-3-2008 and 29-7-2008 and allow the petitioner to collect the market tax beyond one year as per the Agreement dt. 4-8-2007 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been ﬁled by Sri Namburi Bose Babu, assailing the inaction of the Municipal Corporation of Eluru, represented by its Commissioner-the ﬁrst respondent in considering his representations dated 24.10.2007, 5.12.2007, 25.3.2008 and 29.7.2008. The petitioner, by virtue of an agreement, dated 4.08.2007, is authorized to collect Octroi and Asselu for a period of one year. He could not collect Octroi and Asselu from the goods vehicles including lories and thereby he incurred substantial loss. He submitted representations for extension of contract period. His representations remained unattended. Hence he approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Eluru Municipality received notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue received notice on behalf of respondent No.2. Learned Standing Counsel submits that if the petitioner, for any reason, is prevented from collecting the Octroi and Asselu from the goods vehicles, he has to submit representation for remission, and therefore, the question of extending the period of contact does not arise. The fact remains that the representations submitted by the petitioner are pending consideration. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission, directing the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 4th August, 2008 Note: C.C. in 2 days (B/o) Js. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Municipal Corporation of Eluru Rep. by its Commissioner , Eluru, W.G. District. 2 The District Collector, , Eluru, W.G. District. 3 The Standing Committee, Rep. by its Chairman Municipal Corporation of Eluru, Eluru, W.G. District. 4 2 CD copies.