1. The present writ petition has been filed to grant the following relief:

               “... to issue an appropriate Writ Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Corporation in issuing Proc.No.337/ H&S/GHMC/2011, dated 01.02.2011 and demanding Trade License and fee thereon under Section 521 and 622 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, in respect of the petitioner’s shops situated in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and further the action of the respondent-Corporation in demanding garbage charges, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14, 19(g), 243-X and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent-Corporation not to make any such demands without there being any authority under law and pass ….“

2. The brief contentions raised in the writ petition are that, the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and it is carrying on its wholesale and retail business in buying, selling and servicing various brands of Mobile Phones in its shops situated across the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh. It is also stated that the petitioner is carrying on its business through 26 shops situated at various places in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, and the respondent is a local authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is empowered to deal with the matter under the provisions of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘Act, 1955’). It is stated that the petitioner had obtained necessary permissions from the competent authority, as required under the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, which regulates the conditions of work and also employment in the shops of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is not required to obtain any trade license under Section 521 of the Act, 1955, for carrying on its wholesale and retail business of buying, selling and servicing various brands of Mobile Phones through its shops situated in Hyderabad and Secunderabad. It is contended that the respondent-Corporation is insisting upon the petitioner to obtain a trade license under Section 521 of the Act, 1955, and the said provision is not applicable in the case of petitioner since its business does not fall within the purview of Section 521 of the Act, 1955, and the activities carried on by it are not hazardous in nature. Therefore, the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned orders, which are in violation of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Y.Venkateswar Rao and Others v. Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Khammam District and others (2006 (1) ALD 445), and A.P. Bankers @ Pawn Brokers’ Association v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad ((2001) 3 SCC 646) , wherein it was categorically held that the Commissioner is empowered to grant license only if, in case he is able to regulate such trade. It is contended that the Act and the Rules framed there under do not in any manner authorize the Commissioner to regulate the trade in Mobile Phones, and therefore, the respondent Corporation is not empowered to grant any license or to collect any fee from the petitioner.

3. It is further contended that, in a catena of judgments, the learned single Judge of this Court has already held that the respondent-Corporation cannot enforce the petitioners to obtain a trade license, where they are not carrying on any activities falling within the scope of the said Act and, consequently, do not come within the purview of Section 521 of the Act, 1955. It is, therefore, contended that the respondent-Corporation has no authority to compel the petitioner to obtain a trade license under Section 521 of the Act, 1955 and therefore, the petitioner prays to set aside the impugned proceedings.

4. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, appearing for the respondent-Corporation, while reiterating the contentions raised in the counter-affidavit, would contend that the provisions of Section 521 of the Act, 1955, are applicable to the petitioner and that the petitioner is bound to obtain a trade license for carrying on its trade. Learned Standing Counsel further contended that, in view of the Rules made under the Act, 1955, the petitioner is liable to pay the amount demanded by obtaining the appropriate trade license and it is contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Basing on the pleadings in the writ petition and the counteraffidavit, the following points arise for consideration:

               1) Whether imposing license fee on the petitioner by directing to obtain trade license under the provisions of Sections 521 and 622 of the Act 1955 is valid ?

               2) Whether the respondent-Corporation can demand the petitioner to pay bulk garbage charges ?

6. Insofar as the insistence upon the petitioner to obtain a trade license is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association (supra), has categorically held that the Commissioner is empowered to grant a license only where he is competent to regulate such trade. However, in the present case, the petitioner is not coming under the purview of the Commissioner as the trade carried on by the petitioner is not amenable to regulate by him.

7. This Court in W.P.No.8604 of 2015 has categorically held that the Commissioner has no power under Sections 521 and 622 of the Act, 1955, by referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.P. Bankers and Pawn Brokers Association (supra). Therefore, the said issue is no more res integra as it has already been considered and decided by this Court. In the light of the same, in the considered view of the Court, directing the petitioner to obtain a trade license and pay the corresponding license fee is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

8. Having decided the first issue, the second core issue that falls for consideration is with regard to the quantum of garbage charges payable by the petitioner, and whether the petitioner is coming under the purview of the Act, 1955 for the purpose of levy of such garbage charges. It is the bounden duty of the respondent- Corporation to maintain the framework for maintaining and disposal of the garbage. Since the petitioner has been running many mobile shops on a day-to-day basis, the respondent-Corporation is required to collect the said solid waste generated from the petitioner’s shop and dispose the same properly. Otherwise, it would be detrimental and hazardous to the health and safety of the inhabitants within the limits of the respondent-Corporation. Though the issue relating to trade license has already been considered, the Corporation has a duty to dispose the solid waste collected from the respective shops by treating and disposing the same in a proper mode and it will incur heavy expenditure, and the commercial establishments, which deal with such wastage, are bound to pay such garbage charges to the respondent-Corporation. However, the Corporation has to take appropriate steps and determine such charges rationally by following a scientific principle and it should be decided by case to case, and the respondent-Commissioner is competent authority to determine the garbage charges payable by the petitioner by issuing individual notices, quantifying the garbage charges in accordance with law.

9. In that view of the matter, the respondent-Commissioner though issued the aforesaid demand notice, he ought to have followed the due procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act, 1955, and the Rules made there under, as to the disposal of the solid waste, by putting the petitioner on notice, before determining the garbage charges payable by the petitioner. However, it appears from the proceedings that the impugned proceedings were passed without issuing any prior notice to the petitioner.

10. In the light of the above, insofar as the levy of garbage charges is concerned, the respondent-Commissioner is directed to issue notice afresh to all the respective petitioner’s shops, and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, determine the garbage charges in accordance with law, and thereafter issue a demand notice thereupon.

11. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned proceedings, dated 01.02.2011 are set aside to the extent of demanding the trade license fee and directing the petitioner to obtain trade license. However, insofar as the garbage charges are concerned, the respondent-Commissioner is empowered under Section 521 of the GHMC Act, 1955, to levy and recover the same. Accordingly, the impugned orders are sustained to that extent, and the writ petition is dismissed insofar as the levy of garbage charges is concerned. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.