IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 13744 of 2009 Between: Centre for Alternative Resolution of Disputes, (CARD) (A House of Arbitrators & Conciliators) a Proprietary Concern having their office at Chamber 303, III Floor, Jamuna Towers, Malakpet, Hyderabad - 500 036, Rep. by Sri T.S.V. Diwakar, Proprietor. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by the Principle Secretary (Revenue), Secretariat, A.P. Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 001. 2 The Commissioner (CT) Andhra Pradesh, Opp: Handloom House, Nampally, Hyderabad - 500 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or direction declaring the words/ phrases in APVAT Act & Rules mentioned above which are passed by Respondent-Government of Andhra Pradesh called Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of principles natural justice etc., and consequently strike down the said words/phrase n the Act & Rules and grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner: Party-in-person Counsel for Respondent No.1: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for Respondent No.2: Government Pleader for Commercial Tax The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioner has prayed that certain words and phrases used in the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) and the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’) should be changed. Thus, in effect, he wants amendment to the Act and the Rules. 2. Looking to the prayer made in the petition, in our opinion, it is not for the judiciary to make any amendment to the Act or the Rules and, therefore, the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 10th July, 2009 ks