IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 1567 of 2009 Between: MRF Ltd., A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at 124, Greams Road, Chennai, Rep by its Office Manager Mr. R.Vimal Kumar S/o. Late P.R. Nair, aged about 39, having its Branch Office at 5-8-328/2, Chapel Road, Nampally, Hyderabad ... PETITIONER AND 1) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer & Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund road, Hyderabad 2) The Deputy Commissioner, Circle VIII, Greter Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad 3) Mohammed omar khaja moinudding Qureshi @ Mohammed Moinuddin, S/o. Late Mohd. Masihuddin Qureshi, aged 45, R/o. 5-8-328, Chapel Road, Nampally, Hyderabad. ...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 a writ of mandamus declaring the notice of demand bearing No.689 dt. 21-1-2009 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and set aside the same OR in the alternative this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to declare the action of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in seeking to seize the articles of the petitioner in premises No.5-8-328/2 at Chapel Road, Nampally, Hyderabad pursuant to the notice of demand bearing No.689, SL.No.1, dt. 21.1.2009 issued by respondent No.2 as illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and issue a consequential direction directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to seize the petitioners article/goods. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, SC FOR MCH Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR.MOHAMMED IMRAN KHAN The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. The petitioner is a tenant of respondent No.3, who was called upon to pay municipal taxes by respondent No.1. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was not supposed to pay taxes for the previous years. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has paid the amount of tax and, therefore, the petition has become infructuous. 4. In the circumstances, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. 5. Learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that determination of tax has been challenged by the landlord before an appropriate forum. 6. So far as determination of tax is concerned, this Court is not expressing any opinion and it would be open to the landlord to challenge validity of quantification of the tax by the respondent authorities. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 21, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}