IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 15980 of 2008 Between: Maruthi Enterprises, D.No. 9-3-9, Nidadavolu, Rep. by its Proprietor Maddula Satyanarayana, S/o. Gunneswara Rao, Aged 48 Years, Nidadavolu, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary (Municipal Administration and Urban Development), Secretariat, Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Council, Nidadavole, Rep. by its Commissioner, West Godavari District. 3 Kondeti Sathi Babu, S/o. Thatiah @ Thatha Rao, Opp. Municipal Water Works, Yernagudem Road, Nidadavole, West Godavari 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, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 2 and 3 not to collect market cess pursuant to the publication in the District Gazette (extra-ordinary) No.7 dated 23-02-2008 under Sec. 271, 277, 278, and 358 of the Municipalities Act pursuant to which the auction was conducted, in which the 3rd respondent has become the highest bidder successful contractor in areas other than the markets, which are defined in the publication. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.SIVANANDA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: In this writ petition the petitioner is questioning the collection of market cess pursuant to the notification published in the District Gazettee (extra-ordinary) No.7 dated 23.2.2008 under Sections 271, 277, 278 and 358 of the Municipalities Act. The petitioner is a resident of Nidadavole Municipality and is running business by name Maruthi Enterprises in iron, hardware, paints, cements, sanitaryware, plywood etc., The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that his shop is situated at Yernagudem road, Nidadavole, which is out side the notified market area and, therefore, he is not liable to pay the market fees/cess as directed by respondents 1 and 2. It is also contended that even though, as per the provisions of the A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Act’) the petitioner is not liable to pay the market cess, the respondents are demanding him to pay the same in the light of the opinion dated 8.7.2008 given by the Municipal Standing Council, Nidadavole Municipality to the effect that even outside the notified market areas, the cess can be collected on a loose interpretation of Section 277(2) of the Act. Since the opinion of the standing council do not alter the legal position, the petitioner is not liable to pay the market cess as demanded by the respondents and thus sought for appropriate directions. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court on 24.7.2008, the 2nd respondent – Municipal Commissioner, Nidadavole Municipality filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that the notification issued by the Municipality on 23.2.2008 clearly notified the demarcations of all the sites of weekly sandy market and daily market and also road margin in municipal limits. It is stated that even though the petitioner is running the business in the items notified, in a different road, far away from the notified market places, the shop is situated in the municipal limits only and, hence, the respondents are entitled to collect the market cess from the petitioner. Relying upon the provisions of Section 277(2) and 9(c) of the Act, it is contended by the respondents that the Municipality has every right to collect market cess from the vehicles or pack animals carrying or on persons bringing goods for sale in such markets. It is also stated that the payment of trade license is in no way concerned with the payment of market fees. While the trade license is the advance payment for respective trade paid once an year, the market fees will be collected from the trader, who brings the notified goods for the purpose of sale anywhere in the town. Since the petitioner is doing business by using the municipal roads and importing the listed goods of the notified market through vehicles and keeping his goods in the municipal road margins and is throwing waste on the roads, he is liable for payment of market fees as the Municipality is spending money to clean the road margins and maintain the sanitation. That apart, as per Section 277(2) of the Act, the Municipality is empowered to levy the market fee from the shops located in the municipal limits. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent Municipality and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Contractor. Admittedly, the petitioner is doing the business in the notified goods viz., Iron and other essential commodities used in building construction. Though his shop is situated away from the notified market area, it is not disputed that the shop is situated in the municipal area and that he is using the road margins etc., for parking his vehicles. The only intention behind collecting the market fees is to collect the money spent by the Municipality to clean the roads and to maintain sanitation. The impugned notification clearly notified the demarcations of all sites of weekly sandy markets and daily market and also road margin in municipal limits. Further, Section 277(2) of Act clearly envisages the places and the persons from whom the market fees could be collected. Apart from that, except stating that the shop of the petitioner is located outside the notified market and, therefore he is not liable to pay the market fees, no material to substantiate the said contention has been placed before this Court. On the other hand, the material placed before the Court indicates that though the shop of the petitioner is situated far away from the notified market area, it is situated within the municipal limits. If that be so, it cannot be said that the respondent municipal corporation is not entitled to collect the market fees as per the provisions of Section 277(2) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons, I see no reasons to entertain the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J 21.01.2009 msv