IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY 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 : 3086 of 2009 Between: 1 Bharateeya Vidya Kendram, Visakhapatnam, Registered Society, Rep by its Secretary, Sri G. Surya Appala Narasimham, S/o. Late Sarveswara Chainulu, aged 65 years, H.No. 49-12-18, Lalithanagar, Visakhapatnam 2 The Head Master, Vignana Bharathi School, Lalithanagar, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District, Rep by G. Srinivasa Ra, S/o. Appanna, Aged 32 years, R/o. Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Ramachandrapuram Municipality, Rep by its Commissioner, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari 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 to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring as illegal, arbitrary and without jursidiction and contrary to the provisions of H.M.C. Act/A.P. Municipalities Act, the special Notice dated 22-9-2007 issued by the Respondent for the building bearing Asst. No. 106500.7597 & 7598 bearing D.No. 32-7-5/1, Lalithangar, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District served on the 2nd petitioner and issue a consequential direction to the Respondent not to take coercive steps for recovery of proeperty tax and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.K.A.NARASIMHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipality. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard and disposed of today. The petitioner is a registered society running educational institutions, which imparts education to the children. The petitioner has been aggrieved by a demand notice dated 22-9-2007, whereby tax in respect of the premises belonging to the petitioner has been demanded. It is the case of the petitioner that the said properties have been exempted under the provisions of Section 202(1)(bb) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 from payment of tax. It has been further submitted that two representations have already been made by the petitioner to the respondent-Municipality claiming exemption from payment of property tax, but no order has been passed on the said representations and, therefore, the petitioner-Society has reason to believe that exemption has been granted. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that no exemption has been granted so far, because the petitioner is not entitled to the said exemption. However, he has fairly submitted that the representations made by the petitioner have not been decided so far. In view of the fact that the representations made by the petitioner claiming exemption from payment of property tax are still pending, we direct the respondent to decide the representations, copies of which are annexed to this petition, within (15) days from today. The final decision taken by the respondent shall be communicated to the petitioner by registered post. In view of the above direction, we are sure that the grievance, which has been ventilated in the petition with regard to non-grant of exemption from payment of property tax, would be redressed. In view of the afore-stated directions, the petition stands disposed of as allowed to the above extent with no order as to costs. _______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 18th February, 2009. GRR