THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.9492 of 2007 ORDER: The petitioner is a Private Limited Company, undertaking the trading dairy products. It has purchased vehicles for carrying on the business, namely to transport the milk and milk products. On such vehicles, in the front side, the words ‘milk van’ were written and on the rear side, the product manufactured by the petitioner, namely Mukunda Milk, was written. The Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, the 1st respondent herein, awarded a contract to the 2nd respondent to collect advertisement fee. The 2nd respondent issued notice, dated 21.11.2006, requiring the petitioner to pay advertisement fee of Rs.12,278/-, for various vehicles. The petitioner challenges the same. According to it, the display on the vehicles owned by a business undertaking is exempted under proviso to Section 421 (1) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). No counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. Section 421 of the Act empowers the Commissioner of the Corporation to regulate and control the advertisements. The provision reads as under: Section 421. Regulation and control of advertisements: (1) No person shall without the written permission of the Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement whether now existing or not, upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure: Provided always that such permission shall not be necessary in respect of any advertisement which is not an illuminated advertisement nor a sky-sign and which- (a) is exhibited within the window of any building; (b) relates to the trade or business carried on within the land or building upon which such advertisement is exhibited or to any sale or letting of such land or building or any effects therein, or to any sale, entertainment or meeting to be held upon or in the same, or to the trade or business carried on by the owner of any vehicle upon which such advertisement is exhibited; (proviso (c ) and (d) and sub-sections (2) to (4) are omitted, since not necessary.)” From a perusal of this, it becomes clear that though advertisement of different categories are subject to regulation and control, thereby meaning that the permission or licence is necessary, no such requirement exists, in case of advertisements that are exempted under the proviso. A perusal of clause (b) of proviso to sub-section (1) discloses that, if the advertisement relates to trade or business carried on by the owner of any vehicle upon which such advertisement is exhibited, no permission is necessary. It is not in dispute that the advertisements in question were displayed on the vehicles owned by the petitioner. There was absolutely no justification for the 2nd respondent in levying the advertisement fee on the vehicles. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is set aside. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.17.03.2011. GJ