VISAKHAPATMNAM TYPEWRITING INSTITUTES OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. VISHAKAHA[PATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent Corporation in levying and seeking to collect the trade Licence fees from the petitioner/ institutions as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction, and consequently forbearing the Officials of the respondent / Corporation from collecting any Licence Fees from the petitioners pursuant to the notices issued under Section 521 and 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (for short the M.C.H.Act).

(2.) Petitioner No.1 is the Visakhapatnam Typewriting Institutes Owners Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary, Mr. Sambasiva Rao. It is stated that the first petitioner / Association is a body registered under the Societies Registration Act on 8-7-1988, consisting of 191 Typewriting and Commercial Institute Owners, formed with the object of looking after the welfare of its members. It is stated that the first petitioner - Association as well as petitioners 2 to 7 are imparting technical education i.e. Typewriting and Shorthand to the needy students and each Institute was recognised by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and they are under the control of the Board of Technical Education and Training. It is specifically denied that the petitioner-Institutions are neither shops nor commercial establishments. Further they aver that they are not carrying on professional activities of commercial character. In fact, they are educational institutions, which will not even attract the provisions of Shops and Establishments Act.

(3.) It is averred by the petitioners that the 1st respondent illegally issued notices to them under Section 521 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act demanding lcence fee of Rs. 100/- per each institution on the ground that the activities being carried on by them were harmful to the health and property of the general public. They submit that the activities carried on by them are akin to educational institutions, and are subject to the control of the State Board of Technical Education and Training and they do not come under the purview of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. They further submit that neither Hyderabad Municipal Corporation nor any other Municipal Corporation in the State other than Vishakapatnam Municipal Corporation has been demanding licence fee from any of the Typewriting Institutions in its jurisdiction. They submit that when previously the 1st respondent demanded for payment of similar fee , S.T.C. No. 1472 of 1988 was filed before the Special Munsif Magistrate for cases under Labor and Factories Act, Vishakapatnam. It was held by the learned Magistrate that the petitioner-institutions were not commercial establishments or shops. It is the case of the petitioners that 1st respondent having failed earlier under the provisions of A.P. Shops and Establishments Act to collect licence fee, now issued the impugned notices under Section 521 of the M.C.H.Act. They submit that though the Standing Committee of the 1st respondent Corporation recommended for waiving of licence fee in respect of petitioner- institutions, the 1st respondent ignored the same.