HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos. 12331 and 16544 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is running a Bar & Restaurant in the premises bearing No.1-7-404, Sarojini Devi Road, Secunderabad. The building is an old one and was, in fact, included in the heritage list. It is stated to have been removed from the list in the recent past. The petitioner obtained trade licence from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short ‘Corporation’) and on the basis of the same, it obtained licence from the Prohibition and Excise Department (for short ‘Excise Department’). For renewal of licence by the Excise Department, the existence of trade licence is necessary. 2. The Corporation informed the Excise Department that the building has became old and it does not intend to renew the trade licence to the petitioner for the year 2010-2011. Taking the same into account, the Excise Department did not renew the licence of the petitioner. 3. WP No.12331 of 2010 is filed challenging the steps taken by the Corporation in informing the Excise Department that they were not renew the trade licence. WP No.16544 of 2010 is filed challenging the order, dated 01-07-2010, directing rejection of the renewal licence for the excise year 2010-2011. 4. Heard Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents Corporation and the learned Government Pleader for Excise. 5. The controversy in the writ petitions, revolves around the fitness or otherwise of the building. It is not in dispute that the Corporation issued trade licence to the petitioner long ago and it was being renewed from time to time. The Corporation took the view that the building has become very old and it is not at all safe for use and occupation by human beings. Though there is no provision as such enabling the Corporation to inform the excise authorities well in advance. It has chosen to address a letter to the effect that they do not intend to renew the trade licence for the year 2010-2011, on account of the age of the building. That, naturally, lead to an order of rejection for renewal of excise licence. 6. At one stage of the proceedings, this Court directed the Corporation to constitute a Committee of experts to examine the strength and stability of the building and submit a report. The report has since been submitted. The Committee expressed the view that the building has become very old and it is not advisable to use. The petitioner states that the views expressed by the Committee are not objective and the building can certainly be utilised. This Court cannot express any view on the stability or otherwise of the building. Since the Committee has already submitted its report, the petitioner can submit its own comments and view on it and the same, in turn, can take into account by the Corporation. Depending upon the orders that may be passed by the Corporation, the petitioner can initiate further steps. 7. Hence, both the Writ Petitions are disposed of directing that, a) it shall be open to the petitioner to submit its objections or comments to the report submitted by the Experts’ Committee within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. b) The Corporation shall take the report and the comments into account and pass its own orders as to whether it intends to renew the trade licence or not within a period of ten (10) days thereafter. c) In case, the Corporation passed an order in favour of the petitioner, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Excise authorities for renewal of the licence and on the other hand, if the orders are passed against the petitioner, it shall be open to it to pursue further remedies. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J February 14, 2011 Note: Issue CC in three days. (B/O) KTL.