IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 23745 of 2008 Between: R.Srinivasulu S/o.Pallaiah R/o.D.No.18-1-311,Venugopal nagar Ananatapur ..... PETITIONER AND The Anantapur Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Municipal Commisisoner, Anantapur .....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 a writ order or direction more particularlyone in thenature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not disposing the petitioner representations dated 5.5.2008 and 30.8.2008 arbitrary,and illegal, consequently direct the respondent to consider the representations dated 5.5.2008 and 30.8.2008 of the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR,KUNCHEAMMAHESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23745 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by R.Srinivasulu assailing the inaction of the respondent-Corporation in considering his representations, dated 5-5-2008 and 30-8- 2008. 2. The petitioner participated in open public auction conducted by the respondent authority with regard to the lease hold rights to collect on behalf of the Respondent Municipal Corporation for the year 2008-09. He paid Rs. 16,09,135/- towards security deposit and also entered into agreement with respondent Corporation. While so, on 5-4- 2008 at 4-30 p.m. the respondent authority called the petitioner and insisted him not to collect fee in relation to the tractor (III category). He ﬁled W.P.No. 7928 of 2008 assailing the action of the respondent-Corporation in insisting him not to collect Rs. 17/- per tractor load (III Category). The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 11-4-2008. The relevant portion of the order passed in the writ petition reads as here under:- “The learned standing counsel has pointed out that the Corporation, having already conferred the necessary right to collect fee, in terms of its proceedings dated 1st April, 2008, on the writ petitioner, it could not have objected the petitioner to collect fee of Rs. 17/- on every tractor load of produce, which is sought to be brought in under the 3rd category markets. If the respondent-Corporation is in no manner interfering with the right of the petitioner to collect the fee at the rate of Rs. 17/- per every tractor load of produce brought into the 3rd category markets situated within Ananthapur Municipal Corporation limits, then the petitioner cannot have any grievance whatsoever. IF the petitioner is attempting to collect the fee at rates higher than those prescribed in the auction notiﬁcation dated 22nd February, 2008, then the respondent- Corporation would be preferably justiﬁed in raising an objection. In case, the respondent seeks to prevent the petitioner from collecting fee in any of the markets, upon noticing that he has been collecting in excess of the prescribed rates, it may do so by passing an order in writing and shall not indulge in issuing oral instructions in that regard. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs”. 3. It appears that S. Chinna Peddanna and eight others ﬁled W.P.No. 10400 of 2008 assailing the action of this petitioner in collecting the fee on the tractors or vehicles entering into municipal Corporation area. An interim order came to be passed in the said writ petition. Subsequently, the writ petitioner entered appearance in the said writ petition and ﬁled W.V.M.P.No. 2740 of 2008. The vacate stay petition came to be disposed of on 25-9-2008. The order passed in the vacate stay petition reads as hereunder: “This vacate stay petition has been ﬁled by R-3 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 2-5-2008 passed in WPMP No. 13620 of 2008. Heard learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner and learned counsel appearing for vacate petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the vacate stay petitioner submits that the deﬁnition of market includes any place where persons assembled for sale of or for the purpose of exposing for sale live stock etc., By reading the deﬁnition of market learned counsel contends that the vacate stay petitioner is entitled to collect fee on the tractors/vehicles which enter into municipal areas along with produce. The question whether the deﬁnition of market can be read into the notiﬁcation is required to be examined in the writ petition. It is suﬃce to say that the beneﬁt of interim order passed on 2-5- 2008 is applicable only to the writ petitioners. With the above clariﬁcation, this vacate stay petition is disposed of”. 4. After the disposal of the vacate stay petition, the petitioner herein submitted representation to the respondent Corporation on 8-10-2008. There being no action on the representation, the petitioner approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri S.I. Newton takes notice on behalf of the respondent- Corporation. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for respondent- Corporation. 7. The factual aspect of the petitioner ﬁling representation dated 8-10-2008 before the respondent Corporation consequent on the orders passed on the vacate stay petition being W.V.M.P.No.2740 of 2008 is not disputed and his representation is stated to be pending. 8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-Corporation to consider the representation dated 8-10-2008 and pass appropriate orders. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 31st October, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 23745 OF 2008 31st October, 2008.