IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 27943 of 2008 Between: M/s Bata India Limited, 3-6-290/16, Sadana Building, Hyderguda, Hyderabad Rep by its District Manager, Hyderabad & Secunderabad Sri K.Siva Kumar, S/o. K.Subramaniyam, aged about 48 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Commissioner, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Asst. Advertisement Officer, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 4 The Advertisement Inspector, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank bund, Hyderabad. .....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 to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the respondents in insisting upon payment of the advertisement fee without disposing of the representation dated 25-8-2008 submitted by the petitioner company in pursuance to the orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 26-8-2008 in W.P.No.18580 of 2008 and issuing of fesh notices i.e., (1) SL.No.48, Book No.281/ advt/GHMC/2008-2009 dated 19-12-2008 (2) SL.No.35, Book No.12/ advt/GHMC/2008- 2009 dated 27-11-2008 (3) SL.No.25, Book No.14/ advt/GHMC/2008-2009 dated 22-11- 2008 (4) SL.No.31, Book No.12/advt/GHMC/2008-2009 dated 22-11-2008 (5) SL.No.33, Book No.12/ advt/GHMC/2008-2009 dated 22-11-2008 & (6) SL.No.36, Book No.14/ advt/GHMC/2008-2009 dated 28-11-2008 as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the orders of this Hon'ble Court. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : ORDER According to the petitioner, it gave a representation on 25.8.2008. But, however, the respondent-authorities, without passing any orders thereon, issued demand notice to it. In that view of the matter, it approached this Court, and filed WP No.18580 of 2008. This Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, passed the following order: “The fact remains that the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 25.08.2008 is pending consideration with the respondents. In that view of the matter, writ petition is disposed of directing respondent Nos.1 & 2 to dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Status quo with regard to collection of advertisement fee shall be maintained till the final orders are passed on the said representations. No order as to costs. “ Now, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that despite the said order passed by this Court, the respondents have issued fresh demand notice. Questioning the same, it approached this Court and filed the present writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking at the order passed by this Court on 26.08.2008, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. In the said order, this Court specifically directed the parties to maintain status quo with regard to collection of advertisement fee till the final orders are passed on the said representation dated 25.08.2008. If any demand notice is issued, in my considered view, the remedy for the petitioner is to approach the said Court and move an application stating that the said order is not complied with and thus, intentionally the respondents have flouted the order. Instead of moving a contempt case, the petitioner approached this Court and filed the present writ petition, which according to me, is not correct. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 23-12-2008 rkk