IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8826 of 2009 Between: Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Limited, 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 its Attorney ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Hyderabad, represented by its Commissioner. 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advt.) Advertisement Section, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. 3 M/s. USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.401, Ritesh Premier Towers, Plot No.171, Opp: Karkhana Police Station Vasavi Nagar, Karkhana, Secunderabad - 500 006. .....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 issue appropriate order/orders, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not considering the oral reply given by the Petitioner and delegating the power of collection fees to Respondent No.3, and further the authority of Respondent No.3 demanding the fees from the petitioner as without jurisdiction illegal and further the notice issued by Respondent No.2 dated 7th March, 2009 as null and void and not binding on the petitioner and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioner on the ground that the name board fixed by them on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks. The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 28th April, 2009 bcj