THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2056 of 2002 Dated: 06.02.2008 Between: Chandrakanth Traders, Adoni, Rep., by its Proprietor. … Petitioner AND The Adoni Municipality, Rep., by its Commissioner, Adoni. … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K. Somakonda Reddy Counsel for the respondent : Sri S.I. Newton THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 2056 of 2002 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare Resolution No.151 dated 25.10.2000, as notified in the Kurnool District Gazette in the month of January, 2001 to the extent it envisaged levy of licence fee on vehicle showrooms, as illegal. Heard Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.I. Newton, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Municipality. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 263 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and argued that the municipal council has power to prescribe taking of licence by notification in respect of the activities, which are mentioned in Schedule IV. He further submitted that the entries in Schedule IV contained in (a) to (v) do not include the activity of running a showroom for the purpose of obtaining of licence. Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that in pursuance of the general power vested in the municipality, the impugned notification is issued. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and the relevant statutory provisions as mentioned above, I am of the view that the respondent has no power to insist on obtaining of licence and to levy and collect licence fee in respect of the activities, which are not included in Schedule IV. On a careful consideration of the entries in Schedule IV, I am inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the activity of running an automobile showroom is not included in the same. The contention of the petitioner is fortified by the judgment of this Court in M/s. Fertilizers, Pesticides and Seeds Dealers Welfare Association, Suryapet and others v. Municipal Council, Suryapet Municipality[1]. For the abovementioned reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notification to the extent of the petitioner is declared as illegal. It is brought to the notice of this Court that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was directed to pay 50% of the licence fee and that in compliance with the said direction it deposited the amount. In view of the fact that the impugned notification is set aside, the respondent is directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner pending the writ petition. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, WPMP.No.2429 of 2002 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 06.02.2008 ES [1] 2006 (2) ALT 108