IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 6511 of 2009 Between: Bata India Ltd., Vijayawada Depot, Rep by its Incharge Manager, M.C. Bhatnagar,S/o. Dayanand, Aged 75 years, Vijayawada, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND The Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation Vijayawada, Krishna District. .....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 any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, declaring the undated occupier notice issued by the respondent Corporation demanding to pay an amount of Rs.57,980/- towards taxes of the house bearing No.40-1-119 Assessment No. ( Old )26298H/2 (New) 224135 as illegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of Sec.269 and 276 of the A.P. Municipal Corporation Act and consequently direct the respondent not to demand any property tax from the petitioner by setting aside the undated occupier notice issued by the respondent Corporation. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SMT.G.JHANSI, STANDING COUNSEL FOR VIJAYAWADA MUNICIPAL CORORATION The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The petitioner is an occupier of the premises bearing No.40-1- 119, N.H.S. Road, Benz Circle, Vijayawada, in respect of which tax was demanded by the respondent Municipal Corporation, as the landlord of the property had not paid municipal tax. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner that during the pendency of this petition, the landlord has already paid the municipal tax and therefore he seeks permission to withdraw the petition, because no tax is now sought to be recovered from the petitioner – occupier. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 09.04.2009 bnr