THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6827 of 2010 Date: 29.03.2010 Between: Srikant Jewellers, a Partnership Firm registered under the Partnership Act, 1932 having its office at Abid Road, Hyderabad rep., by its Partner Sri Giriraj Charan. … Petitioner and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep., by its Additional Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and another. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6827 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Rupendra Mahendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is carrying on business under the name and style of Srikant Jewellers. They erected Sign boards/Glow signs outside their business premises. The 2nd respondent, by proceedings dated 23.01.2010, called upon the petitioner to pay the requisite advertisement fee through Cheques/D.Ds in their favour i.e., in favour of M/s USM Business Systems Private Limited within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, held that the power to demand a fee or tax is specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons are naturally to be the officials of the Corporation itself; notices issued by an agency on behalf of the Corporation is contrary to law; Section 169 requires any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee to be credited to the consolidated fund of the Corporation; the permission accorded by the Corporation to collect the fee was totally opposed to the scheme of the Act; and the notice issued to the petitioners, requiring them to pay the fee through cheques/demand drafts in favour of the second respondent, was in clear violation of the specific provisions of the Act. The impugned notice was quashed as it did not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Act. Following the said judgment, the impugned demand notice is quashed as it does not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from taking necessary action afresh in accordance with law. The Writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 29.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR