IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18580 of 2008 Between: M/s. Bata India Limited, 3-6-290/16, Sadana Building, Hyderguda, Hyderabad rep. by its District Manager, Hyderabad & Secunderabad, Sri. K.Siva Kumar, S/o. K.Subramaniyam, Aged: 48 yrs, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advertisement Section ), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Nest Enterprises Private Limited (Authorised Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of G.H.M.C.), M.I.G. - 9 B, Indian Airlines Colony, Street No.3, Opp. Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS 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 declaring the action of the respondents in insisting upon payment of the advertisement fee without disposing of the representation dated 25.8.2008 submitted by the petitioner company in pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 19.2.2008 in W.P.No. 7419/2000 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH The Court made the following : O R D E R: This is the second journey of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court by ﬁling W.P.No.7419 of 2000. The said writ petition came to be disposed of on 19.02.2008. The relevant portion of the order in W.P.No.7419 of 2000 reads as hereunder: “Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents agreed that the point for consideration in this Writ Petition is covered by M/s.Heaven Bombay Dying Showroom Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (W.P.No.2530 of 2005 dated 15.12.2005). In view thereof the impugned notice can to be treated as a show cause notice as to why the amount demanded there under should not be covered and petitioner should submit reply to the notice putting forth all his contentions within three weeks from today. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the respondents shall dispose of the case on merits, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon keeping in view the ratio in Ratiloku Shetty Vs. Municipal Corporation of greater Mumbai as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months after the petitioner submits its reply. Depending on the result of the decision taken by the respondents, petitioner can seek the remedies available. Till the respondents take a decision on the impugned notice and communicate the same to the petitioner by registered post acknowledgement due there shall be stay of collection of the amount covered by the impugned notice”. It is the contention of the petitioner that it submitted representation pursuant to the direction given by this Court in writ petition No.7419 of 2000, but the respondents without passing any orders on the said representation, proceeded to remove the hoardings. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation received notice on respondent Nos.1 & 2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner.and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted a representation on 25.08.2008 and the respondents did not consider the explanation so far. There is no response to the earlier explanation submitted by the petitioner. Whereas the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits that the petitioner has not placed any proof to show that it submitted an explanation as directed by this Court in W.P.NO.7419 of 2000 prior to ﬁling the instant writ petition. The fact remains that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25.08.2008 is pending consideration with the respondents. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 & 2 to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Status quo with regard to collection of advertisement fee shall be maintained till the ﬁnal orders are passed on the said representations. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY J., Dt.26.08.2008 Tjs ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1 2 CCs.to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advertisement Section ), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 Nest Enterprises Private Limited (Authorised Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of G.H.M.C.), M.I.G. - 9 B, Indian Airlines Colony, Street No.3, Opp. Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad. 4) 2 C.D.Copies