IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 370 of 2003 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 28/01/2003 in WP NO : 21532 OF 1999 on the file of the High Court.) Between: SURENDRA SINGHI s/o Late Dhanraj Singhi r/o. Plot No.4&5, Balaji Enclave Transport Road, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD Ssecunderabad, City Civil Court Complex, Secunderabad, rep. by its Executive Officer, 2 Balaji Enclave Welfare Association Rep. by President Mascod Abdul Khada, Reg No.6742 R/o. 20, Balaji Enclave, Transport Road, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K.RAGHAVA CHARYULU The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 370 of 2003 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) This writ appeal is filed challenging the order, dated 28.1.2003 in W.P.No.21532 of 1999 by the learned single Judge. The appellant herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the above writ petition challenging proceedings No.EB/Balaji Enclave/3901, dated 30.9.1999 and seeking a direction to the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful conduct of the business by the petitioner in plot Nos.4 and 5 situated at Balaji Enclave, Transport Road, Secunderabad, on the ground that he is pursuing a business in retail sale of steel and cement in plots bearing Nos.4 and 5 situated in Balaji Enclave, Transport Road, Secunderabad (for short, ‘Plot Nos.4 and 5’) along with other owners of the premises and he erected two tin sheds to carry on trade and the petitioner applied for a licence to the 1st respondent-Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Secunderabad and while so, on the complaints of Balaji Enclave residents, a show cause notice dated 9.9.1999 was issued to the petitioner directing him to discontinue his business activities in the premises on the ground that it is creating nuisance to the neighbourhood and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the proceedings dated 30.9.1999 has been issued. The learned single Judge having observed that the petitioner has no extant trade licence and he is therefore, not entitled to continue his trade or business in plot Nos.4 and 5 during the year 1999-2000 and thereafter and he has however been continuing the business on the basis of interim order of this Court and under Section 212 of the Act, the 1st respondent has got a plentitude of power, including to require the owner, lessee or occupier of the premises to discontinue the use of such place whenever the respondents-authorities are satisfied that any place used under the licence granted under the provisions of the Act constitutes a nuisance and likelihood of public danger, life, health or property, but after issuing a notice in writing and there is no infirmity in the notice of the 1st respondent, dated 30.9.1999, dismissed the writ petition. Having aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. As can be seen from the material available on record, it is apparent that on the complaint of the residents of Balaji Enclave, show cause notice dated 9.9.1999 was issued to the petitioner and after considering the explanation of the petitioner, the order dated 30.9.1999 was passed. It is also obvious that there is no extant trade licence in respect of the premises in question in favour of the petitioner. According to the provisions of the Act, if the respondent-authorities are satisfied that any place used under the licence granted, constitutes a nuisance and likelihood of public danger, life, health or property, they are empowered to require the owner, lessee or occupier of the premises to discontinue the use of such place. The material on record clearly goes to show that there is a complaint that the petitioner’s business is causing nuisance. Apart from that, mere payment of trade tax earlier in the year 1997-98 does not amount to granting any permission to the petitioner to utilize the residential plots for commercial purposes. In this background of the matter, We feel that the order of the learned single judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this writ appeal is devoid of merits and the same is thereby liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ___________________________ Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar Dated: 7th April, 2009 Gurc/nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO :370 of 2003 (Order of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) 7th April, 2009