IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5462 of 2009 Between: 1 Furniture Market, Natraj Theater Complex, Patny Circle, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Partner, Sri L. Surendera Nath, S/o. Late gunde Rao, Aged 34 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot NO. 41, Suryanagar, Kharkhana, Secunderabad. 2 Furniture World, Jade Arcade, Paradise Circle, MG. Road, Secunderabad. Rep. by its Partner, Sri L. Surendera Nath, S/o. Late gunde Rao, Aged 34 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot NO. 41, Suryanagar, Kharkhana, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.b y its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business Systems jPrivate Limited, 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Secunderabad. .....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 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 5-3-2009 vide proceedings NO. 245/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in serial No. 4086, dated 2-3-2009 vide proceedings No. 245/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in seiral No. 3166, respectively under section 421 R/w section 622 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, 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 naturaljustice Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 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 the advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name boards 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. On such representations being filed, the respondents shall consider them and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 18th March, 2009 bcj