THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.10289 of 2002 Dated: 21.01.2010 Between: Siddi Vinayaka Automobiles Limited Rep. by its Managing Director K.V.Babul Reddy. .. Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .. Respondent. ORDER: According to the deponent, the Managing Director of the petitioner Company, the petitioner Company was appointed as a dealer of two-wheeler and three-wheeler of Bajaj Auto Limited at Hyderabad and it has a showroom and a workshop at the premises bearing D.No.3-2-870/3, VNR Complex, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. It is his case that only for the purpose of administrative convenience, an Office counter is provided in the showroom run by the petitioner Company, and when a customer visits his showroom, after selecting one of the models displayed in the showroom, he pays the price at the office counter, goes to the workshop for pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle and takes the delivery and, thus, the entire transaction of retail sale of automobile in his showroom is a single transaction that takes place in the showroom-cum-office. The petitioner contends that to provide the facility of service of vehicle, its showroom has a workshop, in which spare parts are also provided. While so, the respondent officials inspected the showroom-cum-office of the petitioner Company and, on the pretext of the petitioner company running various trades such as showrooms, automobile office, pre-delivery inspection, eliminator service, workshop and spare parts, insisted the company to pay separate licence fees for each trade/operations undertaken by the petitioner company, by artificial break up of the single transaction of sale that takes place in the show room, but however, under protest and threat of closure of the showroom and workshop, the Company paid the fees demanded by the respondent officials. It is the further case of the petitioner that it has to pay licence fee for a) Automobiles of fittings and accessories shops (retail),for which licence fee is Rs.150/- and b) workshop, for which licence fee is Rs.1,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that though it is not liable to pay separate licence fees for single transaction of sale in its company and though there is no provision of payment of licence fee to its office, the respondent demanded to pay licence fee for two showrooms, even though there is only one showroom, and for eliminator service and pre-delivery inspection, which are not separate trades, and also excess licence fees in respect of the workshop and spare parts, which are one and the same but not distinct. Hence, this writ petition. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is stated that the petitioner is running various trades, which require licence from its Corporation as per provisions of Section 521 (e) (ii) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, and, as such, it demanded separate licence fees for various trades carried on by the petitioner company as per the schedule of rates for 1999-2000. It denied the allegation of the petitioner that all the activities undertaken by it are one and the same, as the petitioner itself admitted in the affidavit that while undertaking the services of the vehicles, automobile spare parts are also sold, which is a different and distinct trade. Heard the learned counsel on either side. Though learned counsel for the respondent relied on Section 521 (e) (ii) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, as the basis for imposing separate licence fees for various trades being carried on by the petitioner, a perusal of the said Section does not reveal such separate trades. Even if it is mentioned in the rules or guidelines made for the purpose of fixing up the licence fee, the trades carried on by the petitioner cannot be said to be separate trades, as they come under one roof. However, even according to the petitioner, the workshop attached to the showroom is liable for collection of separate licence fee, since it undertakes periodical repairs of the vehicles and if necessary spare parts are supplied. Therefore, I am of the opinion that there are only two types of trades being carried on by the petitioner in the form of showroom/shop and workshop and the action of the respondent in demanding the petitioner to pay separate licence fee for seven trades is arbitrary and illegal. In view of the same, the impugned notices are liable to be set aside and are, accordingly, set aside. However, it is made clear that the showroom/shop and workshop are liable for separate licence fee and it is for the authorities to decide the licence fee payable by the petitioner for those two trades. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 21.01.2010 v v