IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3698 of 2010 BETWEEN: The Great Kabab Factory, 283/A, 3rd floor, Mantri, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, rep. by its Proprietor Smt Preeti Kandelwal ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.3698 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. At their request the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Both counsel would agree that the subject matter of this writ petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch dated 31.12.2009 wherein this Court held that the notice issued by the third respondent, calling upon the petitioners to pay advertisement fee as mentioned in the notice through Cheques/DDs in their favour within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, was is in violation of the law. This Court held that the power to demand a fee or tax was specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons should be the officials of the Corporation itself; Section 169 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short – ‘the Act’) required that any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee must be credited to its consolidated fund; the permission accorded by the Corporation to the Agency to collect the fee, which partook the characteristics of tax, was totally opposed to the scheme under the Act; and the notices issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay the fee “through Cheques/DDs in favour of USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd.” was in violation of Section 169 of the Act. The impugned demand notice was, accordingly, set aside. While several contentions are urged in challenge to the validity of the demand notice, I consider it wholly unnecessary to examine any of them in as much as the impugned demand notice is liable to be set aside on the short ground that the third respondent could not have directed the petitioner to pay the advertisement fee through Cheques/DDs in their favour as such a demand contravened Section 169 of the Act. The impugned demand notice is, accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that this order will not preclude the 1st respondent-Corporation to initiate proceedings afresh, in accordance with law, against the petitioner with regards levy and demand of advertisement fee. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 11th March 2010 Note: Issue copy within one week. B/o CVRK