*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO +WRIT PETITION Nos. 17035 OF 1999, W.P.Nos.6422, 11008 OF 2000, W.P.Nos.14626, 18890 OF 2002 W.P.Nos.2052, 4097, 6678, 6681, 6802, 11834, 11840 OF 2004 W.P.Nos.2070, 4042, 5563, & 5926 OF 2005. %Dated 28-10-2005 Writ Petition No: 17035 of 1999 # Y.Venkateswar Rao, S/o.Seshaiah, Occ:Business, IL-24 Licensee of M/s.Kanaka Durga Wines, Paloncha, Khammam District, and others. … Petitioners. VERSUS $ The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Khammam District, and another. . … Respondents. ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.Amarnath Goud Thodupunuri ^Counsel for Respondents: G.P for Excise Mr.Polisetti Radhakrishna Writ Petition No: 6422 of 2000 # M/s.Urvasi Wines, Narsapuram ,G.V.Subba Rao, Rep by its Proprietor R/o. Palakole. S/o. Naganna Licence No.23/99-2000, and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS $ Narsapuram Municipal Council Rep by its Commissioner, Narsapuram .....Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.Venkateswara Rao Kadiam ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy Writ Petition No: 11008 of 2000 # Sri Sai Sudha Wines, Rep. by its Mg Partner, K.V.R.S.N. Raju, S/.o. Appalaraju, Linence No. 582/98-99. Bhimavaram, west Godvari District. and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS $ Bhimavaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.Ch.Dhanamjaya ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy Writ Petition No: 14626 of 2002 # A. Maheswara Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. D. No. 23-31-4, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. Licencee of Jaya Durga Wines. ..... Petitioner VERSUS $ Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.A.Jagannatha Rao ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.N.Ranga Reddy Writ Petition No: 18890 of 2002 # T.S.Prasad, S/o.Subba Rao, D.no.2-37-1, R.T.C. Bus Stand, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS $ The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannatha Rao ^ Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy Writ Petition No: 2052 of 2004 # Ch.Surya Prakash Babu, s/o Suryanarayana, r/o 13-1-31, M/s Balaji Wines, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District., and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS $ Ramachandrapuram Municipality, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District, rep by its commissioner. .....Respondent ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannatha Rao ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy Writ Petition No: 4097 of 2004 # M. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Nagaraju, Srinivasa Theatre Road Ongole, Prakasam District M/s. Hanuman Wines and others. … Petitioners. VERSUS $ Ongole Municipality, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by its Commissioner. … Respondent. ! Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannatha Rao ^ Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy Writ Petition No.6678 of 2004 # Koneru Srinivas, s/o Subba Rao, Drawaka Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Licencee of M/s.Pavan Bar and restaurant, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Nuzvid Municipality, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. Writ Petition No.6681 of 2004 # G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.G.Satyanarayana, Beside RTC Complex, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Licencee of M/s.Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant. …Petitioner VERSUS $ Bobbili Municipality, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. Writ Petition No.6802 of 2004 # N.Satyanarayana, S/o.Manohar Rao, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Licensee of M/s.Venkateswara Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. Writ Petition No.11834 of 2004 # B.Nagaiah, S/o.Saidulu, R/o.Near Bombay Time House, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Licencee of M/s.Kamakshi Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Polisetti Radha Krishna. Writ Petition No.11840 of 2004 # M.Nagesh, S/o.Sitharamulu, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, D.No.1-5-112, Licencee of M/s.Brundavan Bar, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Polisetti Radha Krishna. Writ Petition No.2070 of 2005 # M.Srinivasa Swamy, S/o.Someswara Rao, Occ: Business, Fish Market, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Sri Vamsee Krishna Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.S.V.Ramana. ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy, SC for Municipality. Writ Petition No.4042 of 2005 # K.Kanaka Raju, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Occ:Business, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Sri Vijaya Bar and Restaurant, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS $ Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioners: Mr.A.Jagannadha Rao. ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. Writ Petition No.5563 of 2005 # K.V.S.Srinivas, S/o.Veera Rao, Occ: Business, Licensee of Surya Wines Undi Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. …Petitioner VERSUS $ Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner: Mrs.G.Jhansi. ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. Writ Petition No.5926 of 2005 # P.Ravindra, S/o.T.V.G.Swaraj, R/o.Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Krishna Beer, Bar and Restaurant. …Petitioner VERSUS $ Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent ! Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.S.V.Ramana. ^Counsel for Respondent: Mr.S.Nageswara Reddy. <GIST: >HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred 1. 1980 (1) An.W.R. 288 2. 2001 (3) ALD 13 (SC) = AIR 2001 SC 1356 3. AIR 1999 SC 635 4. (1979) 1 SCC 137 5. AIR 1988 SC 850 6. 1989 (1) Supplement SCC 347 7. 1995 (1) SCC 474 8. AIR 1954 SC 282 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17035 OF 1999, W.P.Nos.6422, 11008 OF 2000, W.P.Nos.14626, 18890 OF 2002 W.P.Nos.2052, 4097, 6678, 6681, 6802, 11834, 11840 OF 2004 W.P.Nos.2070, 4042, 5563, & 5926 OF 2005. Dated: 28-10-2005 Writ Petition No: 17035 of 1999 Y.Venkateswar Rao, S/o.Seshaiah, Occ:Business, IL-24 Licensee of M/s.Kanaka Durga Wines, Paloncha, Khammam District, and others. … Petitioners. VERSUS The Prohibition & Excise Superintendent, Khammam District, and another. . … Respondents. Writ Petition No: 6422 of 2000 M/s.Urvasi Wines, Narsapuram ,G.V.Subba Rao, Rep by its Proprietor R/o. Palakole. S/o. Naganna Licence No.23/99-2000, and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS Narsapuram Municipal Council Rep by its Commissioner, Narsapuram .....Respondent Writ Petition No: 11008 of 2000 Sri Sai Sudha Wines, Rep. by its Mg Partner, K.V.R.S.N. Raju, S/.o. Appalaraju, Linence No. 582/98-99. Bhimavaram, west Godvari District. and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS Bhimavaram Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. .....Respondent Writ Petition No: 14626 of 2002 A. Maheswara Rao, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. D. No. 23-31-4, Beach Road, Visakhapatnam. Licencee of Jaya Durga Wines. ..... Petitioner VERSUS Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Visakhapatnam. .....Respondent Writ Petition No: 18890 of 2002 T.S.Prasad, S/o.Subba Rao, D.no.2-37-1, R.T.C. Bus Stand, Kakinada, E.G.Dist., and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS The Commissioner, Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari District. .....Respondent Writ Petition No: 2052 of 2004 Ch.Surya Prakash Babu, s/o Suryanarayana, r/o 13-1-31, M/s Balaji Wines, Main Road, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District., and others. ..... Petitioners VERSUS Ramachandrapuram Municipality, Ramachandrapuram, E.G.District, rep by its commissioner. .....Respondent Writ Petition No: 4097 of 2004 M. Rajendra Kumar, S/o Nagaraju, Srinivasa Theatre Road Ongole, Prakasam District M/s. Hanuman Wines and others. … Petitioners. VERSUS Ongole Municipality, Ongole, Prakasam District, rep. by its Commissioner. … Respondent. Writ Petition No.6678 of 2004 Koneru Srinivas, s/o Subba Rao, Drawaka Road, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Licencee of M/s.Pavan Bar and restaurant, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Nuzvid Municipality, Nuzvid, Krishna District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.6681 of 2004 G.Srinivasa Rao, S/o.G.Satyanarayana, Beside RTC Complex, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Licencee of M/s.Lakshmi Bar and Restaurant. …Petitioner VERSUS Bobbili Municipality, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.6802 of 2004 N.Satyanarayana, S/o.Manohar Rao, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Licensee of M/s.Venkateswara Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Kakinada Municipality, Kakinada, East Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.11834 of 2004 B.Nagaiah, S/o.Saidulu, R/o.Near Bombay Time House, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Licencee of M/s.Kamakshi Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.11840 of 2004 M.Nagesh, S/o.Sitharamulu, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, D.No.1-5-112, Licencee of M/s.Brundavan Bar, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet, Nalgonda District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.2070 of 2005 M.Srinivasa Swamy, S/o.Someswara Rao, Occ: Business, Fish Market, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Sri Vamsee Krishna Wines, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.4042 of 2005 K.Kanaka Raju, S/o.Satyanarayana Murthy, Occ:Business, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Sri Vijaya Bar and Restaurant, and others. …Petitioners VERSUS Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.5563 of 2005 K.V.S.Srinivas, S/o.Veera Rao, Occ: Business, Licensee of Surya Wines Undi Road, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District. …Petitioner VERSUS Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent Writ Petition No.5926 of 2005 P.Ravindra, S/o.T.V.G.Swaraj, R/o.Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, M/s.Krishna Beer, Bar and Restaurant. …Petitioner VERSUS Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, Rep. By its Commissioner. …Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITIION Nos.17035 OF 1999; 6422 and 11008 OF 2000; 14626 and 18890 OF 2002; 2052, 4097, 6678, 6681, 6802, 11834 and 11840 OF 2004; and 2070, 4042, 5563 and 5926 OF 2005. COMMON ORDER: A short, but interesting question, as to power of the Municipality or Municipal Corporation constituted under A.P.Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the Municipalities Act’) and/or the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short ‘the HMC Act’), or Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Act, 1979, to insist upon a trade licence by the persons engaged in retail liquor business, arises for consideration. In all these writ petitions except in W.P.No.14626 of 2002, for the years 1997-1998 and 1998-1999, the petitioners obtained licences in Form IL-24 under A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (for short ‘the Excise Act’) and A.P. Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970 (for short ‘the Excise Rules’). They paid requisite licence fee and rentals to Excise Department. Some of the petitioners also obtained licences under Section 263 of the Municipalities Act duly paying requisite annual licence fee ranging from Rs.200 to Rs.300. However, by the impugned notices, the municipalities demanded all the IL-24 licensees to pay the licence fee at the rate of 1% of rentals/excise licence fee paid by the petitioners. For instance, in a particular place the annual licence fee payable by IL-24 licensee is Rs.10 lakhs, such licensee is required to pay Rs.10,000/- as trade licence fee to the Municipality. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned notices requiring them to pay municipal trade licence fee at the rate of 1% of excise licence fee. Before noticing rival submissions, the events, which led to the issue of impugned notices by various municipalities, may be noticed. Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act came into force on 2.4.1965. Chapter-VI of the said Act (Sections 259 to 307) contains provisions for issue of licences and collection of fees. Section 263 enumerates the purposes for which places may not be used without licences and provides for the publication of a notification by the Municipal council in that regard for the purposes specified in Schedule-IV. Whatever be the purport of the said provision or Schedule-IV, all the Municipalities were giving trade licences to retail/wholesale liquor shops on collecting normal annual licence fee. In 1986, the Government of A.P. issued a circular being Circular No.2/931 D (1) /86 dated 6.6.1986, directing all the Municipal Commissioners in the State to tap the existing tax and non-tax resources to improve the financial position of the municipalities. The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration was requested to review the levy and collection of various taxes periodically. He submitted a report to Government on 6.5.1993, based on which the Government appointed a Committee of Municipal Commissioners to study and submit a report on the fee structure of i) dangerous and offensive trades ii) fees in market and slaughter houses iii) building licence fee and layout fee, and iv) encroachment fee. The Committee of Municipal Commissioners in its report while proposing the rates of licence fee suggested minimum and maximum rates for dangerous and offensive trades. The Government considered the said report in their orders in G.O.Rt.No.21 Municipal Administration, dated 5.1.1996, and directed all the Commissioners of Municipalities to adopt the rates suggested by the Committee of Municipal Commissioners with effect from 1.4.1996. It appears, the Government of A.P. created Vigilance and Enforcement Department as a part of the General Administration Department under the Director General and ex officio Principal Secretary to Government in GAD. The Vigilance Commission made discrete enquires and came to know that liquor shop owners were trading without trade licences under Section 521 of the HMC Act or under Section 263 of the Municipalities Act. The Vigilance Commission noticed that the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation was levying licence fee of Rs.1200/- to Rs.1800/- for retail and wholesale wine distributors since 1991 and that Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation was levying licence fee of Rs.280/- for each shop since 1992, without revising the rates. It was also found that Nalgonda Municipality was collecting a sum of Rs.300/- as licence fee, which was not revised periodically. Having noticed that excise licence fee/ rentals have enormously gone up, the Vigilance Commission came to the conclusion that 1% of rental value on liquor shops would be reasonable licence fee to be levied by local bodies, to generate optimum revenue for the Municipality. Accordingly, the Director General of Vigilance and Enforcement issued a letter No.111/V&E-II/98, dated 26.11.1998 requesting the Principal Secretary to Government in Municipal Administration to issue necessary guidelines to local bodies for enhancement of licence fee for liquor shops “under dangerous and offensive trade” provisions, to a minimum of 1% of rentals subject to revision once in three years to optimize internal sources of revenue for the Municipalities. The Principal Secretary to the Government in Municipal Administration Department in turn addressed a letter, dated 10.12.1998 to all the Commissioners. While enclosing a copy of the letter to the Director of Vigilance, he requested the Commissioners to take necessary action under the provision of “Dangerous and Offensive” trade activity to levy the licence fee for liquor shops in Municipalities. In pursuance thereof, it is the case of all the Municipalities in these writ petitions that the Municipalities issued necessary notification under Section 263 (1) of the Municipalities Act and later issued demand notices to all the petitioners to pay trade licence fee at 1% of the rentals. In some of the counter affidavits filed by the Municipalities in these cases, apart from Government Orders and on the report of the Vigilance Department, reliance is also placed on Section 263 read with Schedule-IV of the Municipalities Act. Insofar as W.P.No.14626 of 2002 is concerned, the petitioner obtained licence in Form IL-24 for the year 2002-2003 for running M/s. Jaidurga Wines. He was issued a demand notice by Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation (sole respondent in the writ petition) calling upon the petitioner to pay licence fee of Rs.18,000/-, which is assailed in these proceedings. The writ petition is opposed by the Visakhapatnam Corporation stating that the Corporation passed resolution No.47 dated 17.11.2000 and 20.11.2000 to enhance licence fee pertaining to dangerous and offensive trade licences in accordance with Section 622 (2) of the HMC Act. The counter affidavit also refers to the report of the Vigilance Department. Reliance is also placed on Sections 516, 521, 528, 539, 596, 622, 623 and 625 of the HMC Act as applicable to the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation. The learned counsel for the petitioners M/s. T. Amarnath Goud, A. Jagannadha Rao and O. Manohar Reddy, and learned Standing Counsel for Municipalities M/s. P. Radha Krishna, S. Nageswar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Visakhapatnam Corporation Sri N. Ranga Reddy and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Sri P. Vinod made elaborate submissions, placing before this Court the rival points of view. It is essentially submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the excise trade is entirely covered by the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act and relevant Excise Rules, which provide for payment of licence fee as prescribed and regulation of excise trade. The power to regulate, control and impose conditions on a holder of licence in Form IL- 24 absolutely vest in the officials of the Excise Department, who alone are entitled to regulate the business. The Municipal Commissioner or Municipal Authorities have no such power to regulate or control the business in a liquor shop, and therefore, the Commissioner either under the Municipalities Act or under the HMC Act has no power to insist upon the trade licence by a liquor shop owner. They also pointed out that either Schedule-IV of the Municipalities Act or Schedule-P of the HMC Act do not specifically mention the liquor trade, and in the absence of any such mention, the Municipal Council, Municipal Corporation or the Commissioner is not vested with any power either to prescribe a trade licence or licence fee for a liquor shop covered by the appropriate licence issued by the Excise Department. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Sri Satyanarayana Trading Company v. Secretary and Special Officer and decisions of the Supreme Court in A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, and Secunderabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners Association v. H.M.C. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipalities submitted that all the Municipalities published notifications prescribing the trades and the rates of licence fee for such trades in accordance with Section 263 and Schedule-IV of the Municipalities Act. They would also urge that liquor trade is a business, which squarely falls in entry (o) and entry (v) of Schedule-IV, and therefore, it is within the powers of the Municipalities prescribing trade licence for liquor shops and specify the amount of fees to be paid. The learned Standing Counsel for the Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation Sri N. Ranga Reddy placed reliance on Section 521 of the HMC Act and on the notification published by the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under Section 521 (1) (e) (ii) of the HMC Act in support of the contention that liquor shops engaged in wholesale/retail trade are required to pay the licence fee, which is now revised as 1% of rentals. It is also pointed out that the notification issued by various Municipalities have not been specifically challenged before this Court. In support of their submissions they placed reliance on Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Nagar Mahapalika, Bareilly v. State of U.P., Shroff and Co. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Khoday Distilleries Ltd., v. State of Karnataka. The only question is regarding the power of the Municipality and Municipal Corporation to prescribe trade licence and trade licence fee, in respect of the liquor shops covered by the licence issued by the Excise Department under relevant Excise laws. Section 263 (1) of the Municipalities Act reads as under. 263 (1) - Purposes for which places may not be used without licences:- The council may publish a notification in the prescribed manner that no place within municipal limits or at a distance within three kilometers of such limits shall be used for any one or more of the purposes specified in Schedule IV without the licence of the Commissioner and except in accordance with the conditions specified therein: Provided that no notification shall take effect – a. until sixty days from the date of publication, and b. except with the previous sanction of the Government in any area outside the municipal limits. A plain reading of the above provision would show that the power of the Council to publish a notification prohibiting any trade within 3 kms. of municipal limits without licence of the Commissioner, is restricted to the “purposes specified” in Schedule-IV. Schedule-IV consists of entries (a) to (v), of these, entry (o) and entry (v) read as under. entries (a) to (n) omitted. entry (o) – brewing beer, manufacturing arrack or other spirit containing alcohol whether denatured or not, by distillation; entries (p) to (u) omitted. entry (v) – in general, doing in the course of any industrial process anything, which is likely to be dangerous to human life or health or property; Insofar as the Municipal Corporation is concerned sub-section (1) of Section 521 of the HMC Act reads as under. 521. - Certain things not to be kept and certain trades and operations not to be carried on, without a licence :- 1. Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Commissioner no person shall – a. keep, in or upon any premises, for any purpose whatever’ i. any article specified in Part I of Schedule ‘P’ ii. any article specified in Part II of Schedule ‘P’ in excess of the quantity of such article which may at any one time be kept in or upon the same premises without a licence. b) keep, in or upon any premises, for sale or other than domestic use, any article specified in Part III of Schedule ‘P’; c) keep, in or upon any building intended for or used as a dwelling or within fifteen feet of such building, cotton, in pressed bales or boars or loose, in quantity exceeding four cwts ; d) keep or allow to kept in or upon any premises, horses, cattle or other four footed animals -- i. for sale ; ii. for letting out on hire ; iii. for any purpose for which any charge is made or any remuneration is received ; or iv. for sale of any produce thereof ; e) carry on, allow to be carried on, in or upon any premises -- i ) any of the trades or operations connected with trade specified in Part IV of Schedule ‘P’ ; i i ) any trade or operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature, or by reason of the manner in which, or the conditions under which, the same, is or is proposed to be carried on ; f. carry on within the city or use any premises for the trade or operation of a carrier. Section 521 (1) of the HMC Act prohibits a person from carrying on a trade or prohibits storage of particular item “except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Commissioner”. This provision refers to Schedule-P, which contains Part-I to Part-IV. Liquor trade as such is very conspicuous by absence in any of the Parts of Schedule-P. Be that as it is, Section 521(1)(e)(ii) of the HMC Act prohibits a person to carry on trade or operation, which in the opinion of the Commissioner is dangerous to life, health or property. The learned Standing Counsel for various Municipalities and for Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation placed considerable emphasis on entry (v) of Schedule IV of the Municipalities Act and Section 521(1)(e)(ii) of HMC Act, and submit that the trade in intoxicating liquor is dangerous and an offensive trade, and therefore, under Section 521(1)(e) of HMC Act and Section 263 of the Municipalities Act, it is well within the powers of the Municipal Council to prescribe trade licence and levy fees for the same. It is now well settled by reason of catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that intoxicating liquor is res extra commercium, and liquor, as a beverage, being dangerous and injurious to health, its trade is harmful to the society. Therefore, no citizen can claim a fundamental right to do business in intoxicating liquor. It is exclusive privilege of the State to deal in trade and it can create a monopoly in itself. It is permissible for the State to permit trade or business in liquor by parting with its privilege for a fee by granting licence to a person to deal in liquor in the area of manufacturing or selling. It is not necessary to refer to copious case laws on this. It would be suffice to make a reference to Khoday Distilleries Limited v. State of Karnataka (supra). The Constitution Bench after making a reference to the relevant earlier case law summarized the law relating to right to carry on trade in intoxicating liquor in para 60 (of SCC). The principles relevant for the purpose of this case are, (b) The