IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21490 of 2008 Between: Vignanapuri Residents Association having its Office at House No. 5-5-33/26A, Plot No.76, Vignanpuri Colony,Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072 Represented by its Secretary Sri P.V. Narayana S/o. Sambaiah Aged 40 years, Resident of Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Assistant Medical Officer of Health, Kukatpally Circle, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3 Divisional Engineer (Electricals) A.P.C.P.D.C.L. Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 4 Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad represented by its Vice Chairman. 5 A.P. Pollution Control Board, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad represented by its Director. 6 M/s. Sudarshan Engineering Enterprises represented by its Proprietor, Plot No. 39-A Vignanapuri Colony, Behind HUDA Truck Parking Lot, Kukatpally, Hyderabad - 500 072. .....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 an appropriate writ,order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus delcaring the action of the respondents in threating to take coercive steps for removal of the boards erected by the petitioner company at its business place shops etc without giving opporunity whatsover and action of the respodents 1and 2 in authority the 3rd respondent to exepedite the statutory power as arbitrary illegal and ultra virus to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation act 1955 and in the violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21490 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. Petitioner calls in question in this writ petition the notice dated 27-3-2008 issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner erected signboards at its business place indicating the name of its business. The 3rd respondent issued notice to the petitioner directing him to pay Rs.55,29,858/- towards advertisement fee. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted representation dated 31-3-2008 contending that the signboards displayed at its business/oﬃce/show rooms/shops do not come under the purview of an advertisement. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R. Ramachandra Reddy received notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. 4. Both the counsel submit that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court i n Kasturi Brothers, Dress Materials and Saree Shop, Hyderabad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. In the cited decision, the petitioners therein were directed to submit representation to the respondent Corporation. The notice issued similar to that issued in this writ petition has been quashed and the petitioners therein were directed to submit individual representations. For better appreciation, I may refer para 12 of the judgment and it reads hereunder. “. In the light of the fact-situation, wherever the statute ordains a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the same may have to be done as speciﬁed therein unless and otherwise any other procedure be permitted to be followed in accordance with law. There cannot be any two opinions relating to this aspect. Making demand, collection of fee or collection of tax, these are all aspects governed by speciﬁc statutory provisions. It is needless to say that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad being creation of a statute and being a statutory body, the duties expected to be discharged or performed by the Corporation to be performed by the Corporation itself or through its oﬃcials and the realm or the operation of the private agencies and the scope and ambit thereof in relation thereto would be very limited. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the contract said to have been entered by the Corporation in favour of a private agency. This Court also is not inclined to express any further opinion whether the private agency who had been entrusted with this duty had made excessive demands or only such demands which were speciﬁed by the Municipal Corporation as such. But however, in the light of the language employed in Section 421 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion that to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Act, the Corporation must satisfy itself ﬁrst that the provisions are attracted and hence the fee/demand can be levied. This exercise to be made in individual cases and in the peculiar facts and circumstances especially in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred in ICICI Bank Limited and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others *Supra) and also the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court referred in greeting Corner Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned demand notices as such cannot be sustained and accordingly, the said demands made are hereby quashed and the matters are remitted to the Corporation to give opportunity to the individual writ petitioners to make their individual representations and let the Corporation consider and look into such objections which would be raised by the respective writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law. Accordingly, let the petitioners make such representations as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks and the Corporation to take an early decision in relation thereto thereafter.”. 5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to made representation to the respondents 1 and 2 preferably within four weeks and the Corporation to take early decision in relation to thereof. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 29th September, 2008. Note: C.C. in two days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 21490 OF 2008 29th September, 2008 [1] 2007(1) ALD 481