IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 2984 of 2009 Between: 1 Vasireddy Swagruha Foods, Plot No. 5, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 2 Vasireddy Swagruha Foods, Opp : Mamatha Narsing Home, KPHB, IV Phase, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3 Vasireddy Swagruha Foods, GP, Sunny Enclave, Nizamabad Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4 Ruchi Catering, Plot No. 311, Vivekananda Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. all petitioners rep by its Proprietor, Sri Chava Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged 45, R/o. Plot No. 117, Mythri Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3 N. Navodaya India Enterprises Private Ltd, 1st Floor, Srinivasa Complex, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices dated i.e. on 3-1-2009, 10-12-2008, 10-12-2008 and 3- 1-2009 vide receipt Nos. 1692, 543, 633 and 1684 respectively under section 114 to 118 of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place and consequently demanding the fee for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name board fixed by them on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks. The respondents shall consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 17th February, 2009 bcj