THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.6583 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Sreenivas Rao Velivela, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation and at their request, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is carrying on hotel business in premises No.5-4- 149 beside Sri Surya Wheels, Ranigunj Bus Stand, Secunderabad, having erected the name board on the parapet wall of the premises. The name board was erected on the conspicuous place of the establishment in order to facilitate easy and convenient identification of the nature of business and the name of the shop and establishment by its customers and other officials. The third respondent issued notice dated 06.01.2010 under Section 451 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act {“the Act” for brevity} calling upon the petitioner to pay the advertisement fee through cheque or DDs in their favour within seven {7} days from the date of receipt of notice. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, held that the power to demand a fee or tax is specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons are naturally to be the officials of the Corporation itself; notices issued by an agency on behalf of the Corporation is contrary to law; Section 169 requires any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee to be credited to the consolidated fund of the Corporation; the permission accorded by the Corporation to collect the fee was totally opposed to the scheme of the Act; and the notice issued to the petitioners, requiring them to pay the fee through cheques/demand drafts in favour of the second respondent, was in clear violation of the specific provisions of the Act. The impugned notice was quashed as it did not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Act. Following the said judgment, the impugned demand notice is quashed as it does not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from taking necessary action afresh in accordance with law. The Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the said circumstances, without costs. _______________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 6th April 2010 RRB