IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 6896 of 2009 Between: K.Somraj, S/o. K.Babu Rao, Gouri Shanker nagar, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Assistant Director Veterinary Section, Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation 5th Floor, Parking complex, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of certiorari and quash the same by calling upon the records relating to Notice dated 25.03.2009 bearing No.53/VET/CZ/GHMC/2008 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and improper. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. SHIVA SHANKER CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents : (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.6896 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner herein was selling Chicken and Mutton at premises bearing No.8-2-601/G/18, Gowri Shanker Nagar, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the Notice of Closure dated 10.09.2008 issued by the Assistant Director, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.20323 of 2008. The said writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit his explanation treating the said notice dated 10.09.2008 as a show- cause notice. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted his explanation date 30.09.2008. Thereafter, by order, dated 29.11.2008, the petitioner was again directed to close down his shop within a period of 3 days. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.26474 of 2008 contending inter alia that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice since he was not furnished the copies of the complaints allegedly received against him and that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to him. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 3.12.2008 directing the respondents to furnish the copies of the complaints that were received in the office of the Corporation and afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks. There was also a direction by this Court that no coercive steps shall be taken by the respondents in the meanwhile pursuant to the order dated 29.11.2008. It is not in dispute that in compliance with the said directions of this Court the petitioner was furnished a copy of the complaint received against him. The petitioner was also given an opportunity of personal hearing on 7.3.2009. Thereafter the impugned order dated 24.3.2009 came to be passed directing the petitioner to stop the business within 24 hours stating that the petitioner’s business was in violation of Section 539 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMC Act, 1955’). The said order is challenged in this writ petition contending that the impugned order is arbitrary and illegal and actuated by mala fides. It is also alleged that the petitioner was never given an opportunity of personal hearing, but on the other hand he was openly threatened and abused in filthy language by the respondent – Assistant Director of Veterinary Section, Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is also alleged that the respondent had already made up his mind not to issue the licence to the petitioner. It is pleaded that there are several shops in the locality without possessing any licence. It is also alleged that the impugned order was passed at the instance of the owner of the premises wherein the petitioner was carrying on business. That apart, the respondent had developed grudge against the petitioner since he had initiated contempt proceedings in this Court. It is also pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that he got issued a notice dated 9.3.2009 through his counsel calling upon the respondent to consider the petitioner’s application for licence on the basis of No Objection Certificate issued by the neighbours of the locality and other relevant documents. However, the respondent, without considering the petitioner’s request for licence, passed the impugned order directing to stop the business within 24 hours. Accordingly, the petitioner had closed his shop from 26.3.2009 onwards. It is also pleaded that the owner of the premises filed O.S.No.4135 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the IX-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking eviction of the petitioner from the business premises in question and the impugned proceedings were initiated only to harass and pressurize the petitioner to vacate the premises. It is also alleged that in spite of the directions of this Court in CC.No.1776 of 2008 dated 28.1.2009 the respondent failed to consider the petitioner’s request for issuance of a licence, but passed the impugned order which is nothing but arbitrary action. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is stated that as per the directions of this Court in CC.No.1776 of 2008 the petitioner was asked to appear for hearing on 7.3.2009 vide notice dated 3.3.2009. Though the petitioner appeared in person, he did not produce any documents for issuance of licence in his favour. Personal hearing was also given to him earlier on 16.12.2008 in compliance with the directions of this Court. Thus it is pleaded that the impugned order passed by the respondent did not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Section 539 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 runs as under : “539. Butchers and persons who sell the flesh of animals to be licensed:- No person shall without or otherwise that in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Commissioner in this behalf— ( a ) carry on within the city, or at any municipal slaughter-house the trade of a butcher; (b) use any place in the city for the sale of the flesh of any animal intended for human food, or any place without the city for the sale of such flesh for consumption in the city.” A reading of the above provision shows that no person can carry on within the city the trade of a butcher or use any place in the city for the sale of the flesh of any animal intended for human food without a licence granted by the Commissioner. It is clear from the impugned order dated 24.3.2009 that the petitioner was directed to stop his business on the ground that he was carrying on the business in violation of Section 539 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 i.e., without holding a licence as required under Section 539 of the HMC Act, 1955. The material on record also shows that one K. Satyam, who is the owner of the premises bearing No.8-2-601/G/18, Road No.11, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, wherein the petitioner was carrying on the business made a complaint to the respondent on 3.8.2008 alleging that while taking the premises on lease the petitioner had misrepresented that he would run a Tea-stall in the said premises. Since he started carrying on Chicken business, resulting in unhealthy situation, the residents of the locality raised objections. It was also alleged that the petitioner was carrying on the business without possessing any license. However, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he had taken the premises in question on lease for the purpose of carrying on business in Chicken and the immediate neighbours of the premises had given No Objection Certificate to run trade in the said mulgi. It is also stated that he had been carrying on the same business in the said premises from 29.5.2006 and there was never any complaint from any resident of the locality much less the owner of the premises till August, 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire proceedings were initiated at the instance of the landlord of the premises who had developed enmity against the petitioner and wanted to evict him from the premises in question. However nothing could be placed before this Court to show that any licence was granted in his favour by the Commissioner of the Corporation as required under Section 539 of the HMC Act, 1955. The only material that could be placed before this Court is a copy of the application made by the petitioner seeking trade licence under Section 521 of the HMC Act, 1955. Even the said application appears to have been made in February, 2009 for grant of licence for the year 2009-10. It is the case of the petitioner that his request for licence was deliberately not considered by the Corporation and in the meanwhile the impugned action was initiated by the respondent herein for closure of the shop. It is relevant to note that the competent authority to grant trade licence under Section 521 of the HMC Act, 1955 or the licence as contemplated under Section 539 of the HMC Act, 1955 is the Commissioner of the Corporation. Since he is not made a party to this writ petition, it is not known what steps have been taken pursuant to the application made by the petitioner for trade licence. However, the fact remains that as on today the petitioner did not possess either trade licence under Section 521 or the licence as contemplated under Section 539 of HMC Act, 1955. In the circumstances, the impugned order, dated 24.03.2009, directing closure of the shop for contravention of Section 539 of HMC Act, 1955 cannot be held to be arbitrary or illegal. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Commissioner of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to consider the application made by the petitioner for grant of licence under Section 521 of HMC Act, 1955 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is also granted liberty to make an appropriate application for grant of licence under Section 539 of the HMC Act, if not already made, within one week from the date of receipt of this order. If any such application is made, the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, shall receive and consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within two weeks from the date of receipt of the said application. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation is hereby impleaded suo motu as respondent No.2 to this writ petition and Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Commissioner. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 20.08.2009 gbs