IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 3384 of 2005 Between: Sandarshni Restaurant, Park Lane Circle, Secunderabad, rep. by its Proprietor, S.M.Vazeer, S/o.S.I.Vazeer, R/o.Secunderabad. .... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municiapl Corporation of Hyderabad rep.by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl.Commissioner (Finance) Advertisement Section, M.C.H. Tankbund Road, 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place are as covered by section 420 and 421 of H.M.C. Act and consequently demanding the fee vide proceedings No.Book No.3, Serial No. 72, dated 3-2-2005 for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.G.JYOTHI KIRAN The Court at the stage of admission made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place as covered by Section 420 and 421 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), and consequently to declare that the impugned proceedings dated 03-02-2005 demanding advertisement fees is arbitrary and illegal. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Smt. G.Jyothi Kiran appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Name Board, securely fixed on parapet wall of the business premises of the petitioner, is not a sky sign nor an advertisement and therefore Sections 420 & 421 of the Act do not attract. Thus, according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner is not liable to pay the advertisement fees as demanded under the impugned notice. Since admittedly, the said objection raised by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents before issuing the impugned notice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioner to submit its explanation raising all the objections as are available under law, treating the impugned notice as a show cause notice. If any such explanation is submitted by the petitioner within four weeks from today, the respondents shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders afresh in accordance with law. Till such orders are passed, the impugned notice shall not be given effect to. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. _________ 24.02.2005 SH To 1 The Commissioner, Municiapl Corporation of Hyderabad Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl.Commissioner (Finance) Advertisement Section, M.C.H. Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 2 CD copies.