HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18327 of 2004 Date : 10.08.2009 Between : The Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chit Funds, Secunderabad, rep. By its Secretary-General. …..Petitioner And Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad. …..Respondent HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.18327 of 2004 ORDER : In this writ petition, the petitioner-Andhra Pradesh Federation of Chitfunds, seeks directions by way of Mandamus, to restrain the respondent-Corporation from insisting on taking license and collecting license fee for carrying on the trade or operations of chitfunds, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. In this writ petition, directions are sought for, mainly on the ground that there is no valid reason for bringing the trade in chitfund business under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, insisting to obtain license. It is submitted by Sri G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, that the persons doing similar kind of business in banking and pawn-broking have earlier filed writ petitions before this Court, which were dismissed, and the said orders were confirmed in appeal filed by them, and further, the matters are carried to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeals, which are allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by a judgment, dated 02.03.2001, in the case of A.P.Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. It is submitted that asmuch as identical plea is raised by the petitioner, the subject matter of this writ petition is covered to be allowed, in terms of the aforesaid judgment. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation, on instructions, also submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association (1 supra), covers the subject matter of the writ petition, in favour of the petitioner-Federation. In the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while interpreting the provision under Section 521 (e) (ii), held in para 7 as follows : "It is admitted that the Notification is under Section 521(e)(ii). Section 521 provides for "certain things not to be kept and certain trades and operations not to be carried on without a licence." Sub-section (1) starts with the words "Except under and in conformity with the terms and conditions of a license granted by the Commissioner." Thus the whole purpose of Section 521 is to ensure that the Commissioner is in a position to regulate the trade or operation or to prevent things from being kept except on certain terms and conditions, which may be fixed by the licence. It, therefore, automatically follows that if there are no terms and conditions which can be imposed by a Commissioner or the Municipality in respect of a particular trade or operation then even if the Commissioner is of the opinion that that trade or operation is dangerous to life or health or property or that it is likely to create a nuisance he would not be able to regulate or control that trade or operation. Insistence on getting a licence, in such a case, would be a useless formality and would not be authorised by Section 521." In para 12 of the judgment, it was further held by the Supreme Court as under : "........Thus, if a shop or some shops are set up in crowded areas or require any regulation, then it would be a matter for regulating that particular shop or those particular shops by laying down appropriate conditions. Merely because a pawn broker or a money lender is likely to set up a shop in the thick of a residential locality or in a crowded place would be no ground for the Commissioner to come to a conclusion that the entire trade or occupation of money lending and pawn broking is dangerous or likely to create nuisance. It is clarified that this Court is not saying that the Commissioner cannot under Section 521 (e) (ii) notify a particular trade or operation, i.e. include all persons carrying on that particular trade or operation." 3. In view of the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent, following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above, this writ petition is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 10th August 2009 ajr [1] AIR 2001 SC 1356