IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 23221 of 2001 BETWEEN: M/S Sri Khater Home Appliances Pvt Ltd., Rep By Its Director Mr. Ranjeet Khater S/o Sri H.K. Khater, 7-2-652, R.P. Road, Secunderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl. Commissioner (Finance) Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or any other direction in the nature of Writ, more particularly Writ of Mandamus to the respondents declaring the Demand Notices bearing Rc.No.2292/Advt/MCH/2001 dated 20.8.2001, Rc.No.2292/Advt/MCH/2001 dated 20.8.2001 and Rc.No.2292/Advt/MCH/2001 dt.20.8.2001 issued to the Writ petitioner, are illegal, arbitrary, high-handed, and are violative of Art.14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and issue any other Writ or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.CHANDRASHEKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner questions the notices issued by the second respondent dated 20.08.2001 in different proceedings demanding him to pay arrears as well as the current advertisement fee as required under Section 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) relating to the advertisement matter of home appliances, hire purchase finance and Khateer House for the years 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. This Court while admitting the writ petition did not grant any interim order. Under Section 421 of the Act no persons shall without the written permission of the Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement whether now existing or not, upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure. However, such permission is not required in respect of any advertisement which is not an illuminated advertisement nor a sky-sign and which is exhibited within the window of any building and relates to the trade or business carried on within the land or building upon which such advertisement is erected. However, where any advertisement is erected, exhibited, fixed or retained without any permission the respondents are entitled to remove the same. 4. In the instant case, the type of advertisement is neon/glow/electric display/baklit non- hoarding type and the advertisement matter relates to home appliances, hire purchase finance and khateer house, therefore, it cannot be said that this type of hoarding cannot be included within the meaning of advertisement. However, I have considered similar issue in WP.No.20096 of 2001 and held that the petitioners therein are not entitled for any relief as it cannot be said that the notices issued are in contrary to Section 421 read with Section 622 of the Act. 5. However, I am of the opinion that, as the year of payment of advertisement fee is already over and as no interim order had been granted, no cause of action survives in this writ petition. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J August 8, 2008 DSK