AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Mohammad Nayab Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri ASC Bose, learned Standing Counsel for Municipal Corporation appearing for the respondent Nos.2 to 4. With the consent of both the learned counsel, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is against the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in interfering with the possession of the subject shop bearing No.51, situated in the GVMC Gullalapalem Shopping Complex, which was allotted to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 20.12.2025.
It is contended that, pursuant to the said proceedings dated 20.12.2025, a lease deed was also executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner on 12.08.2026 for a period of three years, with effect from 20.12.2025 to 19.12.2028. The petitioner also obtained a trade license on 09.07.2026 for running a beef shop (Veterinary Trades, Beef (Offal) shop inside the Municipal Market.
The petitioner further contends that the respondent authorities are interfering with the petitioner’s possession of the subject shop. Even though the petitioner had obtained the license from the concerned authorities, the respondent authorities orally instructed the petitioner not to open the shop and operate his business from the subject shop. Aggrieved by the said oral directions, the instant writ petition is filed.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation would submit that, the petitioner although was under an obligation to conduct his operations in accordance with the license conditions, under the garb of the trade license is doing business other than the business(s) for which it was granted. The residents of the locality objecting to the said business made a complaint to the Corporation and, resisted such conducting of the business from the subject shop. The respondent Corporation therefore orally instructed the petitioner not to do any business contrary to the license conditions.
In this regard, it is submitted that if the respondent Corporation proposes to take any action against the petitioner for violation of the terms and conditions of the license, the same would be in accordance with law and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein as well.
Having regard to the said submission, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent Corporation not to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the subject shop, without following the due process of law, so long as the business is being conducted in accordance with the conditions of the license issued by the competent authority.
Needless to observe that if the petitioner is found to be carrying on any unauthorized business, the respondent Corporation is at liberty to take appropriate measures to prevent such unauthorized operations, after following the due procedure under law.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.