VENKATA RAMANA AGENCIES Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Challa Dhanamjaya, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies representing respondents 1 and 2, Sri S.Nageswar Reddy, the Standing Counsel for 3rd respondent and Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the 5th respondent.

(2.) The learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and the objections raised and would maintain that the preliminary objection raised by Sri P.V. Sanjay Kumar, the learned Counsel representing the 5th respondent that the Writ Petition is not maintainable at the instance of a rival trader cannot be sustained. The learned Counsel also in detail had explained how there is some subsequent change of Law by relying upon certain decisions in this regard. The Counsel also further had pointed out that when other serious objections are there, to throw out a Writ Petition on the ground of such an objection relating to the maintainability, definitely would be unjust. The learned Counsel pointed out to the relevant paras of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition in this regard.

(3.) Sri Nageswar Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the Municipal Corporation would submit that the Bye-Laws referred to in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition no doubt are applicable even to the Kakinada Municipal Corporation. However, the said Bye-Laws may not be of much help to the writ petitioner.