IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13038 OF 2002 DATED: 28-10-2014 Between:
Ravilla Lokanadha Naidu … Petitioner And Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati Municipality, Tirupati, Chittoor District and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.13038 OF 2002
ORDER: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 27.03.2001 issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Tirupati Municipality, the first respondent herein, by which a demand was made to pay an amount of Rs.12,59,112/- on account of the property tax due for the period commencing from 1983-84 to 2000-2001. Mere issuance of such a demand would not have mattered, but a threat was given along with the demand to the effect that unless dues were cleared, licence for running the hotel would not be sanctioned.
No one appears for the Municipality nor has a counter affidavit been filed.
It appears that at the admission stage, interim order was passed asking the Municipality to grant licence. We are informed that licence has already been granted. No appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid order. Further, nothing has been shown before us that for granting licence, clearance of dues on account of property tax is a pre-condition. In other words, withholding of the licence cannot be linked with recovery of the dues. Recovery procedure and mode has been provided in the Act itself. We hold that the threat that unless dues are cleared, licence would not be sanctioned, is absolutely unauthorised under law. Accordingly, we declare so. We confirm the interim order. However, it would be open for the Municipal Commissioner to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the alleged dues of the property tax as has been demanded. Similarly, the writ petitioner would be free to contest the same.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 28-10-2014 Svv