Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to impugned order No.Ma.Aa.9 Va.Thu.Na.Ka.No Special/10, dated 3.3.2010 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently forbear the respondents from collecting a sum of Rs.10,55,400/- under the guise of arrears of trade license fee. 2. The petitioner challenges the impugned proceedings whereby a sum of Rs.10,55,400/- is demanded in excess for the purpose of renewing the licence. The petitioner is an industrial unit and the licence has been issued under Section 287 of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation Act and being renewed from time to time. On 14.2.2003, a sum of Rs.15,000/-is charged as licence fee. The renewal of licence was issued on 16.2.2004 accepting Rs.15,000/- as licence fee and Rs.3750/-for conservancy charges totalling Rs.18,750/-. In the same manner, the renewal of licence was granted for years 2005,2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. On 12.2.2010, when application for renewal of the licence was made to the Corporation of Chennai, the impugned order came to be passed on 3.3.2010. In the said order, it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay licence fee and conservancy charges in a sum of Rs.1,94,650/-whereas, by mistake a sum of Rs.18,750/-alone has been charged and therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the excess amount for the period from 2004-2005 till 20092010 and for that periods, a sum of Rs.10,55,400/-has been demanded as a pre condition for grant of renewal of license. It is challenged by the petitioner stating that the demand is arbitrary, without any basis and the earlier licence and renewal has not been held to be incorrect by a proper proceedings initiated by the respondent corporation. 3. The demand made by merely stating that the lesser amount has been collected has no basis and the reasons are also not stated. The demand is bald and without any substance and also arbitrary. This contention of the petitioner in the writ petition has not been countered or denied by the respondents so far inspite of notice. 4. Even on going through the order under challenge, it is apparent that the demand has been made merely stating that the amount to be collected for licence and conservancy charges is Rs.1,94,650/- for the past period. This contention of the petitioner in the writ petition has not been countered or denied by the respondents so far inspite of notice. 4. Even on going through the order under challenge, it is apparent that the demand has been made merely stating that the amount to be collected for licence and conservancy charges is Rs.1,94,650/- for the past period. No reasons have been given in the order to show the basis of such a demand. There is not even a show cause notice. When the respondent-Corporation has been continuously receiving the licence fee and conservancy charges from the year 2004-05 till 2009-10 without demur, it is not clear as to how the higher amount can be claimed arbitrarily. In any event, if there is a shortfall in the collection and the respondents are entitled to collect the shortfall, it has to be done in the manner known to law and not by making the demand when the petitioner approaches the respondent-corporation for renewal of licence. This appears to be an arm twisting method to collect certain amount without due process. Such an action will be nothing but arbitrary and illegal. The claim made for the past period therefore, deserves to be set aside. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Any amount already deposited pursuant to the interim order of the Court shall be adjusted at the time of renewal of licence. No costs.