IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THIS THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18616 OF 2005 Between: Keerthi Gardens, represented by its Managing Partner T. Shankara Rao and another …. Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal and another …. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.18616 OF 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the notices in ROC No.1173 dated 23-07-2005 and ROC No.1144 dated 18-07-2005 respectivley purported to have been issued by respondent No.2, M/s. P. Chandariah & Company being authorized contractor for collection of trade licence fee for the year 2005-06 by the Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation. 2. There is no necessity of going into all the details. It is suffice to notice that under the impugned notices, respondent No.2 served a notice under Section 622 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) to discontinue the trade within (7) days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which prosecution will be launched against the petitioner in the court of law, besides closing down his trade as per the law provided under the bye-laws. 3. According to respondent No.2, the petitioner was running a function hall and he is a non-licenced trader and, therefore, the petitioner is not supposed to do the trade without there being any licence issued by the Municipality. 4. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 fairly stated that respondent No.2 has no power or authority to issue such notice purported to be under Section 622 of the Act, asking the petitioner to close down the trade i.e. function hall as he has no licence. Further, it is stated that it is for respondent No.1 to take any action, if there is no licence obtained by any of the traders in the Municipal Corporation limits, and it is not for respondent No.2 to do so. 4. In view of the above, the impugned notices issued by respondent No.2 cannot be taken into consideration and the same are arbitrary and illegal since they are not served by respondent No.1 and absolutely there is no power vested with respondent No.2, who was only an agent to collect the trade licence fee and he could not have acted beyond that. 5. Hence, the writ petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned notice.s There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V. RAMULU, J February 10, 2010. KTL