BharatTaxGST

Shaik Ameeruddin vs. The State Of Telangana

Original PDF →
WP/8201/2022HC TelanganaGSTCNR HBHC01010316202208 March 2022Bench: T.MADHAVI DEVI8 pages
For Petitioner: SRl. M, A, K.MUKHEED, !91n191 for the Respondent No. 1: cp FOR MUNtCtpAL ADMtNISTRAT|ON &, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, 9g.yl:"1 for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4:SRt. N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR, GHMCFor Respondent: Gp FOR HOME
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Shaik Ameeruddin, operates a car wash business named 'Sonax Car Wash' at his residence. He has been running this business for approximately 10 years and possesses a trade license and a labor license. The petitioner alleges that respondents 4 and 5 (Zonal Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police) sealed his house and workshop without issuing any prior notice or intimation. The impleaded respondents (7-9) are residents of the locality who complained about noise pollution and nuisance caused by the petitioner's car wash center. The official respondents claim that complaints were received on December 14, 2020, and a notice under Sections 521 and 622 of the HMC Act was issued on December 17, 2020. The petitioner allegedly gave an undertaking to operate without disturbing neighbors. Subsequently, a show-cause notice dated February 7, 2022, was purportedly issued, which the petitioner refused to receive, leading to its pasting on the premises and sealing of the workshop on February 10, 2022, via panchanama. The provisional trade license was also withdrawn.

Held

The Court found it fit and proper to direct the respondents to remove the seal from the petitioner's premises. The Court noted that the petitioner had been carrying on the activity for 10 years and was granted a provisional trade license on February 4, 2022. The date of rejection of this license was not evident from the respondents' filings, and crucially, there was no proof of service of the show-cause notice dated February 7, 2022, on the petitioner. The Court directed the respondents to serve the show-cause notice on the petitioner and grant him ten days to submit his explanation regarding the rejection of the trade license and the action taken. Following this, the respondents are to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. Until such time, no coercive steps are to be taken against the petitioner. The Court disposed of the Writ Petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the action of the respondents in sealing the petitioner's house and workshop, including the car wash business, without issuing a proper notice or intimation, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to unseal the premises. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contends that the sealing was done without any notice or intimation, violating principles of natural justice and constitutional rights. He highlights that he has been operating the business for 10 years with valid licenses and that the area is not purely residential, with other commercial establishments present. He disputes the service of the show-cause notice dated February 7, 2022, and any notice regarding the withdrawal of the trade license, pointing out discrepancies in the panchanama which only refers to an older notice. Respondents' Arguments: The official respondents argue that complaints were received, and a notice under the HMC Act was issued. They claim the petitioner gave an undertaking to operate without causing disturbance. Due to alleged non-compliance, a show-cause notice was issued, and upon refusal to receive it, it was pasted, leading to the sealing. They assert that the provisional trade license was withdrawn, rendering the petitioner's continued operation illegal and the writ petition not maintainable.

Sections Cited

Section 521, Section 622

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF N/ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO Betwee n: AND Shaik Ameeruddin, S/o Sikandar Basha, Aged .ap.oul 43 vears Occ Prop' #;'c;;w;:h, !t pru.i.lt 6ir*ing iti'"i-tipal No 7-1-397145' APHB 52lB MlG, S.R. Nagar, HYderabad ...PETITIONER 1. The State of Telangana, Rep'by its Princrpal Secretary'Municipal ' nimi""ifuiion and"Urbin O;ueiopr"nt department, Secretariat. Hyderabad 2. The Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle No'17' Khairatabad' Hyderabad, Telangana State 3. Greater Hvderabad Ir,4unicipal Corporation' Rep'by its Commissioner' Tank Bund, HYderabad, Telangana State 4. The Zonal Commissioner, Khairatabad Zone' Khairatabad' Hyderabad' Telangana State 5. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone' Hyderabad' Telangana State 6. The Station House officer, S.R. Nagar Police station, Hyderabad, Telangana State 7. B. Srinivas Reddy, S/o' B. Ramachandra Reddy' aged about 54 years' Occ: ' 6r;;;;; iro. lilno. 41l8, 5.i. Nasar' Hvderabad' Hvderabad' 8. A. Veera Reddy, Sio. Ir/anik Re-dd.y, aged about 82,Years' Occ: Retired " Employee, R/o H No. 70/8, S R Nagar' HyderaDao 9. M. Mahender Reddy' S/o. lvl N Reddy' aged about 56 ye"t' Oct' Business' - nlo. H.No. 69/8, S.R Nagar Hyderabad' (RR7 to 9 are impleaded as per C O dt 23t2l2}22 in lA'No 2l2O22') ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in t[e aitiJavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue any Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 8201 OF 2022 wRrr oF MANDAMUS decraring the action of the Respondents in seizing and putting locks over the petitioners house incruding workshop or c* wr.nins;nln" name and style as Sonax Car Wash witn provisional frrOi [ii"nr" 1 DF 1 7 47 40 17 20222022020411 39 1 9, Dared. O 4_02-2022 issued by C. i. nl. C_ *itn GST Registration 36AeDpA4sozDlzr ana lauour iicense SEA/ HYD/ALO/O3/ 037507o12021 , without issuing any notrce or intimation to the petrtioner is ilegar, arbitrary and vroration of articres '14, 2i and 300-A;f constitution of rndia arso against the principles of naturar justice and consequenry direct the Rur;;;;"i. to forthwith unseize the pettioneis house as wett af woitsn"p "i ir,.i,v;;;;;;. tE_ 1r!" and style as Sonax Car Wash with provisional Trade Lrcense TDF17474011202220220204i 13919, Dated. 04_0)2-2022 issued by i.i.,,r.C- *itn GST Registration 36AeDpA4so7D1z1 ano t-aoour License sEa^rvolnlbiosr 0375070t2021 . lA NO: 1 oF 2022 Petition under Section-151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, inu"nig; cor.r may be preased to direct the Respondents to consider the representation oi tlre petitioner dated 14-02-2ozz and to forthwith unseize the petitioners House ai weI as worrsrrop - ot-Lar washing in the name and styre as Sonar car wain with provisionar rrade License T DF 1 7 47 40 1 2 20222022020 411 39 1 9, Dated. O q -Oi-iOZZ issued by C. i -V. C - *,tl, GST Registration 36AeDpA4sorDlzr ano r-auo*- License sEA/HyD/ALoi03/ 037507012021, pending disposal of main Writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. M,A,K.MUKHEED !91n191 for the Respondent No. 1: cp FOR MUNtCtpAL ADMtNISTRAT|ON & URBAN DEVELOPMENT 9g.yl:"1 for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4:SRt. N. ASHOK KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC. Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6: Gp FOR HOME Counsel forthe Respondent No Nos. 7 to 9: SRl. S.V. RAMANA The Court made the following: 'I'IIE II()\OT II,\I}I,E S\I'I".II S'I I('[, I'. \I.\DII,{\ I I)II\'I l-his Writ Petition has beett filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring tlre action o1'the respondents in seizing and putting locks over the petitioner's house includirlg workshop of car washing in the name and style as 'Sonax Car Wash'with provisional trade licence No.TDF1747401"1202220220204113919 dt.04.02.2022 without issuing any notice or intirnation to the petitioner, as illegal or arbitrary. 2. lt is the case of the petitioner that he is rtrnning a car wash u,orkshop for lhe past l0 years in the satne premises and has employed arouncl 25 labourc'rs working witli him and that thev were eking out their hvclihood tlrrough the petitioner's workshop It is sLrbmitted that the petitioner has obtained trade licence and also a licence frorn the Labour Depanrnent for rtulting of the car waslr service in the subject premises and rvithout any notice to him, respondents 4 and 5 have sealed the \\ l{r'f I,r,-l'I1 lo\ \o.lt20l oF 2022 ORDIR \\ P \o Sli)l ol l(1:l ') prenrises. Thcrefbre, the petitioncr \\,as constrailrcd to ille this Writ 3. The petitiorrers irr I.A.No.2 ol'2022 ale rnrpleacled as resporrderrts 7 to 9. They submit that they are the residents of the area in u hich tlre petitioner's car washing centre is located and it is upon their cornplairrt ' that the official respondents sealed the petitioner's workshop by nanre 'Sonax Car Wash'. They sr.rbrnit that the petitioner is caLrsing not onl!' sor.uld pollulion, but is also causing nuisance to the restdents ol the colony. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A.K N4ukhec.d, on the other harrd, submits that rt is not a totallv residential arca but ther.e were cornrrlercial establishments in the localitl, and that the petitioner vvas running the car u,ash area peacefirllv fbr the past l0 years 4. The official respondents have flled counter stating that on 14.12.2020 several cornplaints have been received by the respondent authority fiom the residents of the locality against the rvorkshop of the petitioner and about the inconvenience being caused b,v the petitioner's service centre and accordingly a notice under Sections 521 and 622 of the HMC Act was issued on l'/.12.2020 It is subrnitted that the petitioner, thereafter, has given an undertakine that he rvould carry or) his workshop without disturbing the neighbours ancl rnaintain I)etil ion W.P.No.8201 o12022 cleanliness and good atrnosphere and that he would abide by the conclitions of tlre Governmenr. However, since the petitioner failed to do so, the respondents have issued a show-cause notice dt.07.02 2022,btrt since the petitioner refi.rsed to receive the sarne, the sarne has been pasted on his prernises and vide panchanama dt. I002.2022, the petitioner's car wash area has been sealed. He lurther subrnitted that the provisional trade licence rvhtch had been granted to tlre petitioner has also been witlrrdarvn and therefore, the petitioner has no right to carry on tlre said workshop in the premises occupied by htm and therefore the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel fbr the petitioner, on the other hand, pointed out that in the panchanama, there is only a reference to the show-cause notice issued about 6 rnonths back and there.is uo reference to the show- cause notice allegedly issued on 0'7 .02.2A22 and he denies the service of such notice on the petitioner and also aboul any notice before rvithdrawal of trade licencc. 6. Har,'rrrg regard to the lirct that the petitioner is can.ving on the activity for tire past I0 years in the sarne locality and also that provisional trade licence had been given to the petitioner on 04.02.2022 J arrd the date ol re_jection of such trade licence is not evident fronr tite J \\ P \o l3l(rl ol lo:l cont,l ' -' papers llled by the respondents and thele is no proof of service ol tlte shorv-cause notice dt.07.02.2022 on the petitiorrer. this Clourt decrns it fit and proper to direct the respondents to remove tlre seal and serve lhe show-cause notice on the petrtioner and atier givirtg ten davs tune to submit his explanation rvith regard to the rejection ol the trade licence and also ) taking action in accordance rvith the C tIMC Act, tlre respondcnts are directccl to pass a speaking orclel tltelcon arrl tltercaiicr' proceed in accordance rvitlt larv. l-ill such tirne. uo coercivc steps shall be taken by the oflicial respondents. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingll disposed of'. No ordcr as to costs tt, Pending miscellaneoLrs petitions. if arr1,. in this Wlit Petrtion shall stancl closed SD/.G.SIREESHA ASSIST T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER i To, 1. The Principal Secretary lr/unicipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad 2. The Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Circle No.17, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State 3. The Commissioner. Gre Hvd;;;;;;;#;";;;"S["l"""erabad Municipar corporation, rank Bund, .* +nfr"#i !?IJ issioner' Kha iratabad zone, Kha iratabad, Hyderabad, 5. The Deputy Commissior State , __..,.,,,__,v,1erof police, West Zone, Hyderabad, Telangana 6. The"Station House Officer, S.R. Nagar police Station, Hyderabad, Telangana I 9nu CC ro Srj. t\,4.A-K-tr,4ukheed/Advocate [OpUCl 8. One CC to Sri.N Ashok (Lrrn3p,'gC fo;a;1i,4; iOiUCt 9: 9nu CC to Sri. SV.Ramana, Advocare ropt t.l 10.Two CCs to cp for vunropar iffi;i;i";i Urban Devetopment. High ,, 9::lt::,I" Stare of relansana. [oUr] ]r. i#3 33t3rGP ror Home, Hish iourt ior the State or reransana. [oUr] I PN/ 8S I HIGH COURT DATED:08/03/2022

WP.No.8201 of 2022 Disposing of the WP.

Without costs. 1 .ti ! i,, i€ I Ar,i .,'i 1 o ({:' * .1 rl.Ter, $|' ' nir\ 0 t, I !

Reproduced from the public record of the Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.