THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13135 OF 2010 Dated: 09.08.2010 Between: Pranav Meal and Tiffin Centre, rep. by its Proprietor Butta Shiva Kumar … Petitioner And The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.13135 OF 2010 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’) – in not considering the petitioner’s application dated 16.12.2009 for grant of trade licence to establish a Tiffin Centre in the premises bearing Nos.6-3-540/5 and 6- 3-540/6, Punjagutta, Hyderabad is arbitrary and illegal. Alleging that the respondent Corporation failed to consider its application dated 16.12.2009, the petitioner had earlier filed W.P.No.8469 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 16.4.2010 with a direction to the Corporation to pass appropriate orders on the petitioner’s application within a period of two weeks. Thereafter, the Assistant Medical Officer of the respondent Corporation by letter dated 24.4.2010 informed the petitioner that its request for trade licence cannot be granted for non- submission of No Objection Certificates from the immediate neighbours and also for not providing required parking place. The petitioner in its reply dated 28.4.2010 while informing the respondent Corporation that all relevant papers, including No Objection Certificate from neighbours were already submitted along with the application, had again submitted the No Objection Certificate from the neighbours as well as the proof of parking arrangements. Though the said reply was received in the office of the Corporation on 29.4.2010, the respondent Corporation failed to issue the trade licence as sought by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent, this writ petition has been filed. The respondent Corporation filed counter-affidavit stating that on verification it was found that the immediate neighbours i.e., M/s. S.S. Medicals, premises bearing Nos.6-3-540/2, 3 & 4 and M/s. Hanuman Tiffins, premises No.6-3-540/4 denied that they had given No Objection Certificates to the petitioner. As the No Objection Certificates from immediate neighbours are mandatory under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the petitioner’s request for grant of trade licence cannot be considered. However so far as the parking place is concerned, it is stated that the parking agreement submitted by the petitioner was found to be correct. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit stating that there cannot be any objection with regard to No Objection Certificates submitted along with its application since the same were obtained from Mrs. Anis Fathima Intheqab and M/s. Urvasi Inn Private Limited who are the owners of the two adjacent buildings. It is also stated that when the petitioner made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information with regard to the (1) trade licence, (2) NOC from neighbours and (3) parking permission of M/s. Hanuman Meals and Tiffin Centre, carrying on business in the very next building bearing premises No.6-3-540/4, the Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle No.10, GHMC, furnished information stating that “the said firm is having trade licence with trade identification No.055-051-0274 and the information about Sl.Nos.2 and 3 are not available right now” which itself shows that No Objection Certificate from immediate neighbours is not mandatory for issuance of trade licence as contended in the counter-affidavit. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) deals with grant of licence by the Commissioner to carry on certain trades and operations specified therein. It is not in dispute that for establishment of a Tiffin Centre such a licence is required. However it is contended by the respondent Corporation that the petitioner’s request for trade licence was not considered as the petitioner did not submit No Objection Certificate from the immediate neighbours. The learned Senior Counsel Sri D. Prakash Reddy, appearing for the petitioner while submitting that there is no provision either under the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act or the Bye-laws for the Recognition of Eating Houses or Hotels, 1973 made under G.O.Ms.No.203, dated 26.5.1973 requiring submission of No Objection Certificates from the immediate neighbours for issuance of trade licence, contended that the impugned action of the Corporation is arbitrary, illegal and without any authority. Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation however relied upon the proceedings of the Commissioner No.346/LS(HO)/CMOH/GHMC/2010, dated 21.04.2010 under which the procedure to be adopted for issuance of a trade license was prescribed by the Commissioner of the Corporation. The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation while making an attempt to trace the Commissioner’s power to issue the proceedings dated 21.4.2010 to Section 521 (4) of the Act vehemently contended that the applicants are bound to comply with the same. Though the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that compliance with the instructions issued in the proceedings dated 21.4.2010 is not mandatory as the same have no statutory force, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the said controversy since the petitioner had admittedly submitted the No Objection Certificates along with his application. The material placed before this Court shows that the said certificates were issued by M/s. Anis Fathima Intheqab and Mr. Chandrasekhar, Director of M/s. Urvasi Inn Private Limited, who are the owners of the buildings located adjacent to the petitioner’s premises. Though the fact that they are the immediate neighbours is not in dispute, the Corporation did not accept the said certificates on the ground that M/s. S.S. Medicals and M/s. Hanuman Tiffins who are in occupation of the adjacent buildings denied that they had given No Objection Certificates to the petitioner. The specific plea of the petitioner is that the No Objection Certificates have been issued by the owners of the buildings and that M/s. S.S. Medicals and M/s. Hanuman Tiffins are in occupation as tenants. It is further pleaded by the petitioner that M/s. Hanuman Tiffins who is also running a Tiffin Centre is a rival trader and has been inimical towards the petitioner on account of trade rivalry. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I find force in the contention of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation was not justified in rejecting the No Objection Certificate submitted by the petitioner only on the ground that the same were denied by the occupants/tenants. It is also relevant to note that in the proceedings of the Commissioner dated 21.04.2010 it has not been specified that the No Objection Certificates from the occupants of the adjacent premises should be produced. Moreover, the information furnished to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, makes it clear that the respondent did not obtain such No Objection Certificate while granting trade licence to M/s. Hanuman Tiffins. Hence there is no justifiable reason for not accepting the No Objection Certificates submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to accept the No Objection Certificates submitted by the petitioner along with his application and on being satisfied as to the authenticity of the same to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 09.08.2010 gbs