THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22358 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition, in a way, discloses the lack of orderliness in the functioning of a gigantic organization like Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). If the citizens are finding in miserable conditions in the city, it is not without reason. Several factors have accumulated and they have given rise to the manner of functioning, which could not have been contemplated a few years ago. The petitioner, a transport agency, intended to establish an Office at Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. An application was made through e-Seva, way back on 07.06.2001. It is not known as to whether any orders have been passed on it. The petitioner, on its part, was paying trade licence renewal fee of Rs.2,783/- every year through the same agency. The Corporation was content with receiving the money without verifying the source, relevance or legality. As though the health conditions in the Corporation are perfect and its services are needed elsewhere, the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle No.9, Central Zone, GHMC, Hyderabad, the third respondent herein, issued a show cause notice on 01.04.2009. The subject of that notice discloses that the grievance is about the non-renewal of trade licence due to conversion of land use. However, in the body of the notice, it was mentioned that the petitioner is carrying on the business without obtaining and possessing requisite trade licence. The petitioner responded and submitted his reply on 13.04.2009 referring to the application made by it and renewal of the same from year to year. No reference was made to this and a replica of the notice, dated 01.04.2009, was issued once again on 10.06.2009. Naturally, the petitioner repeated its request. The third respondent issued “closer notice” to the petitioner requiring it to close the business forthwith, on the ground that it is being carried in residential house. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is rather unfortunate and sad that an Officer of the rank of Assistant Medical Officer of Health did not even care to verify the spelling of the heading of the notice. He did not differentiate between “closer” and “closure”. No provision is referred to either in the show case notice, dated 01.04.2009 and 10.06.2009 or on the one that is impugned in the writ petition. The reason mentioned in the earlier show cause notices is that the petitioner is carrying on the business without notice. In the impugned notice, the basis shown is that the petitioner is carrying on the business in residential area and he does not hold effective and valid trade licence. No mention is made to the explanation submitted by the petitioner in response to the show cause notices, much less, any provision of law is indicated. The whole exercise smacks of arbitrariness, if not, indifference. This naturally will tell upon the functioning of the organization as such. This Court expresses its sense of dissatisfaction as to the manner and the way in which the whole affair was dealt with. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. It is made clear that it shall be open to the competent authority to take necessary steps against the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to it. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:20.10.2009 kdl