MADANAPALLE CLOTH MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. MADANAPALLE MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed OS No. 76 of 2001, in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District, for the relief of declaration and injunction, restraining the respondents from levying the market fee on shops dealing with the business of cloths and readymade garments. Through the notification dated 12.1.1999, issued by the Madanapalle Municipal Council, the 2nd respondent herein, and published in the Chittoor Gazette, it proposed to levy licence fee on various establishments functioning within the limits of Municipality, the 1st respondent. The grievance of the appellant was in relation to item 24, of appendix to the notification, which dealt with the sale of the cloths and readymade dresses, made of nylon, polyester, cotton, terri cotton, terlene and handloom textiles. According to the appellant, the notification was issued in exercise of power under Section 263 read with Section 351 of the A.P. Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'), and the first of the provision does not permit of such levy. The trial Court dismissed the suit through judgment dated 8.8.2005. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed AS No. 50 of 2006 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle. The appeal was dismissed through judgment dated 29.9.2010. Hence, this second appeal. Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the items on which, the 2nd respondent can levy the licence fee are enlisted in Schedule IV, referable to Section 263 of the Act, and a perusal of the same discloses that the trade in textiles, cloths or readymade dresses are not brought under its purview. He contends that the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court have proceeded on hyper-technicalities, and that the notification, marked as Ex. A2, insofar as it prescribes the licence fee on shops, dealing with the cloths and readymade garments, cannot be sustained in law.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the goods mentioned in item 24 of the notification are those, which are combustible and by their very nature, the synthetic fibres are highly combustible. He submits that neither the appellant had submitted any objection for the notification, nor the remedy of appeal, provided for under the gazette, was availed. He contends that the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below do not warrant interference. The appellant challenged the notification, Ex. A2, mainly on the ground that it does not accord with Schedule IV of the Act.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, a written-statement was filed, explaining their stand. The trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: