THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.5937 OF 2008 ORDER: The first petitioner herein is a Cloth Merchants Association. Petitioners 2 to 8 herein are the traders who are dealing in cloth in Warangal city and district. 2 This Writ Petition is filed with the prayer, which reads as under: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioner prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the first respondent in entering into an agreement with the respondent No.2 under the agreement dated 21.6.2007 authorising the respondent No.2 to collect the trade licence free from each of the business people like the petitioners herein and to issue the trade licences by the respondent No.2 to the persons who pay the licence fee and the consequential demand notices demanding for the payment of trade licence fee to a tune of Rs.2,500/- from each of the members of the first petitioner Association as required under Section 521 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act as void, illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory offending Art.14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 3 In this Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioners that as much as ‘cloth’ is not notified under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’), which is applicable to the Municipal Corporation, Warangal, no trade licence fee can be collected from them. It is also their case that, in any event, the Corporation cannot enter into agreement with the 2nd respondent, which is a private company, for collection of trade licence fee. 4. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Warangal, has filed counter-affidavit. While denying the various allegations of the petitioners, it is stated in the counter-affidavit that in view of the provision under Section 521 (1) (e) (ii) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, the petitioners are liable to pay licence fee. It is further stated that cloth business is also notified for grant of licence and in that view of the matter it is not open to the petitioners to do business in cloth, without obtaining licence and paying licence fee. 5. As per the scheme of the aforesaid Act, certain trades are notified for grant of licence. Further, there is also power conferred on the Commissioner to notify any trade or operation, which in his opinion is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create nuisance 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. It is the case of the respondents that in exercise of power conferred on the Commissioner, he has notified cloth business; as such there is no illegality in insisting grant of licence and also in issuing demand for collecting licence fee. 6. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Warangal that the agreement entered into by the Corporation with the 2nd respondent for collection of trade licence fee was only for a period of one year and thereafter it is not extended and presently the Corporation itself is collecting licence fee. 7. On filing this writ petition, interim orders are granted by this Court. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted that pursuant to interim orders, no licence fee is collected from the petitioners and further the agreement entered by the Corporation with the 2nd respondent is expired. In view of the expiry of the agreement period, by the Corporation with the 2nd respondent, if any licence fee is to be collected, the Municipal Corporation itself will issue demand notice and collect the same. 8. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that cloth business is not notified, it is not necessary to go into such question in this writ petition as it is pleaded that in view of the expiry of the agreement period, the Corporation itself is collecting fee and the impugned demand notice cannot be enforced at this stage. In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the respondents that the agreement period is expired, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition keeping open to the Corporation to issue fresh demand notice if the licence fee is not paid by the petitioners. However, it is made clear that the issue whether ‘cloth’ is included in the schedule or not, for issuance of licence and for collection of licence fee, is left open. If any fresh notices are issued, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to raise such questions if they so choose. 9. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. __________________ (R. Subhash Reddy, J) 22.12.2011 Kvsn/MRR