IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No : 11262 of 2008 Between: SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD. A Company Incorporated under The Companies Act Having Its Branch Office at H.No.6-3-865 My Home jupally, Ground Floor, Ameerpet Road, Green Lands,Hyderabad-16 and Registered Office at 7th-8th Floor, IFCI Tower 61, Nehru Place, New Delhi, Through Mr.C.Girdhar Rao ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. By its Commissioner Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Additional Commissioner (ADVT), Advertisement Section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, reptd. By its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3. Nest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, having its Office at MIG-9 B, Indian Airlines Colony, Street No.3, 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 issue appropriate order/orders, direction more particularly one in the name of writ, of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 in not considering the oral reply given by the Petitioner and delegating the power of collection of fees to Respondent No.3 and further the authority of Respondent No.3 in issuing the notice and demanding the fees from the Petitioner as without jurisdiction, illegal, and further the notide issued by Respondent No.3 along with bill No.Nos.38132 for Rs.2,58,698/- 38133 for Rs.3,18,664/-, 38134 for Rs.3,18,664/-, 38135 for Rs.1,78,374/-, 38136 for Rs.1,78,374/- as null and void and not binding on the Petitioner Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: ORDER: The writ petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and it raises a question relating to the susceptibility of the sign boards put up by it for the proceedings to be initiated in terms of Sections 421 and 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, as it contends that the boards put up by it do not fall within the meaning of the expression “Advertisement” and, hence, it is not liable to pay the tax prescribed therefor. It is pointed out that in a batch of cases viz., Writ Petition No.4172 of 2006 and batch, decided on 06-03-2007, the Division Bench, while declining to answer the questions of law raised, disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents-Municipal Corporation within a period of two weeks, so that those representations may be considered and speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners would be passed by the Corporation. However, in the instant case, the third respondent, an agency, on whom the power to collect this tax has been conferred by the Municipal Corporation, has raised its grievance that without complying with the directions issued by this Court, the writ petitioner is avoiding the payment of tax, and hence, a tight timeframe should be prescribed for the entire exercise to be accomplished. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the writ petitioner to submit its detailed representation, on or before 10.6.2008 before the Municipal Corporation, which will decide the same, as expeditiously as possible viz., on or before 30.7.2008. For any reason, if the writ petitioner does not file its detailed representation, with a copy to the third respondent herein, it shall be construed that the writ petitioner shall not have any grievance subsisting thereafter. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of, but however, without costs. _______________ (C.V. RAMULU, J) Date: 28-5-2008 Ksn