IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8622 of 2009 Between: Hotel Urvasi 6-3-665/A/1, Opp: NIMS, Panjagutta, Hyderabad-82. Represented by its General Manager, B.Srinivas. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advertisement Section), Head Office, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. U.S.M. Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., (Authorized Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of GHMC), 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Show Room, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the business premises are covered by Section 421 of H.M.C. Act and consequently demanding the fee vide proceedings No.245/AD1/Advt./GHMC-2008-09, Sl.No.217, dt. 25.03.2009 as arbitrary and illegal and consequently set aside the same and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE Counsel for the Respondent No.3: The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondents – Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in treating the name board exhibited by it on the parapet wall of its business premises as covered under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is also questioning the consequential demand notice issued by the respondents to pay the advertisement fee for exhibition of the name board. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is not res integra and this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch dated 28.9.2006 has already considered the issue and quashed the impugned demand notices. It was held 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 can be levied. This exercise has to be made in individual cases. Further, this Court has remitted the matter to the Corporation and gave opportunity to the writ petitioners to make their representations individually and the Corporation was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, following the above said judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 dated 28.9.2006, the writ petition is allowed quashing the impugned demand notice and the petitioner is given liberty to make a representation to the respondents as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks and the Corporation shall take an early decision in relation thereto thereafter. N.V.RAMANA,J Date: 24.04.2009 va/msv