HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.26361 OF 2010
Dated: 07.10.2014
Between:
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Rep.by its authorised rep. A.K.Bhandari, S/o.Harbans Lal Bhandari, aged 54 years, Occ: Chief Manager, C/o.Regional Office At II Floor, Maharshi Building, H.No.8.2.248/A, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad And … Petitioner The Municipal Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO W.P.No.26361 OF 2010
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent.
The petitioner is a nationalised bank and having its head office at New Delhi and branches all over India including the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is conducting its business through various branches/ATM Services with the permissions, licenses of concerned authorities for the benefit of their customers from various places/locations in the State of Andhra Pradesh including in Vijayawada Town. While so, the respondent issued the impugned notices demanding amounts towards Trade Licence Fees and advance etc. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed.
The respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that it is empowered under the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) to issue notices for obtaining trade licenses to run the business of the petitioner. The notices are issued under Section 622(4) of the Act, but not under Section 521 of the Act as wrongly contended by the petitioner. The Corporation has issued proceedings after approval of the Standing Committee. The banking activity of the petitioner is covered by the definition of Section 625 of the Act. The Commissioner is empowered under Section 625 of the Act to issue license to any activity in rendering service to and for the convenience of the public utilizing the public streets of the Corporation along with other amenities provided by the Corporation. Section 622 of the Act also enables the Commissioner for issuance of licenses and written permissions by specifying conditions to any trade or any purpose to be carried out in the limits of the Corporation. The Corporation has not passed any order to close down the business and it is only a notice to renew the trade licence already in existence.
The respondent relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AP BANKERS AND PAWN BROKERS
[1]
ASSOCIATION v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABAD and it relates to Section 521 of the Act and not applicable to the instant case. In Vijayawada city, the other national and private banks/ATMs have been paying D & O Trade License Fees regularly without any complaint.
A reading of the impugned endorsement indicates that the notices were issued under Sections 516, 521, 539, 622 and 623 of the Act. The notices direct the petitioner to pay the licence fee for the conduct of business of the petitioner. In the decision rendered by the respondent in A.P.BANKERS AND PAWN BROKERS (one supra), it was held that no license is necessary for running business in money lending and pawn broking and hence the powers under Section 521 of the Act cannot be invoked by the Commissioner. Now, the only point that survives for consideration is the power of the Commissioner to invoke the provisions contained in Chapter XIX of the Act. Section 622 enables the authority to specify the conditions etc., on which the licences or a written permissions are granted, whenever it is provided in the Act that a licence or a written permission is necessary for the purpose of it. Section 623 of the Act deals with requirement of licence for dealing in dairy products. Section 624 of the Act deals with licence for sale in public place. Section 625 deals with licence for use of skill in handicraft or rendering services for purposes of gain in public place or street. None of the above sections enables the Commissioner to demand the trade licence fee from a bank, which is running its establishment in various places. Section 622 only enables the Commissioner to impose the restrictions and conditions for granting a licence which is required under the other provisions of the Act. There is no other provision shown in the Act, which enables the petitioner to obtain a licence for running its business. In order to invoke the powers under Section 622 of the Act, the pre-condition is requirement of licence under the other provisions of the Act and in the absence of such requirement, the respondent cannot exercise the powers under Chapter XIX of the Act, more particularly, Section 622 of the Act in respect of the petitioner. In view of the same, the Writ petition is allowed by quashing the impugned notices. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
07.10.2014 Rns A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J
[1]
AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1356