IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6411 of 2009 Between: M/s. Vodafone Essar South LImited, 6th Floor, varun Towers II, Begumpet Hyderabad500 016. Rep. by its General Manager (Finance) ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep. by its Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, Hyderabad District. 2 M/s. Navodaya Enterprises, 1st Floor, Srinivasa Compound, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....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 the action of the respondents in threatening to take coercive steps for removal of the boards erected by the petitioner company at its business place, shops etc. without giving opportunity whatsoever and action of the 1st respondent in authorising the 2nd respondent to exercise the statutory power as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE 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 and the impugned demand notice is quashed. The petitioner is also 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 DT.26.3.2009 msv