IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4688 of 2002 and 3824 of 2004 W.P.No.4688 of 2002 Between: The Godavari Chamber of Commerce Ltd., Kakinada, EG District rep., by its Secretary & another. … Petitioners And Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Municipal Admn. Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Nageswar Reddy W.P.No.4688 of 2002 Between: Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Pithapuram & others. … Petitioners And Government of A.P., rep., by its Secretary Housing, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners : Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam Counsel for respondents 1&2: GP for Municipal Admn. Counsel for respondent No.1: Sri S. Nageswar Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION Nos.4688 of 2002 and 3824 of 2004 COMMON ORDER:- In both these writ petitions, the petitioners have questioned enhancement of trade licence fee. Though several contentions have been raised by the petitioners in support of their respective writ petitions, Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma and Sri M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners in their respective writ petitions, submitted that since the petitioners have not made representations to their respective municipalities, they may be permitted to make detailed representations and the municipalities may be permitted to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Sri S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Kakinada and Pithapuram municipalities, submitted that his clients will have no objection to receive and consider the representations. In this view of the matter, both the writ petitions are disposed of without going into the merits of the case with the direction to the municipalities referred to above to receive the representations of the petitioners, if filed within a period of four weeks from today, and dispose of the same by passing reasoned orders within a period of eight weeks thereafter. It is needless to observe that the petitioners are entitled to raise all legally sustainable grounds to plead for reduction of the licence fee, which according to them is too steep and disproportionate to the services rendered by the municipalities. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, WPMP.No.5869 of 2002 in WP.No.4688 of 2002 and WPMP.No.5043 of 2004 in WP.No.3824 of 2004 are disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 21.12.2009 ES