IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9242 of 2009 Between: M/s.Spencer`s Retail Ltd.,Opp:Subahs theatre, Bakaram Road, Musheerabad,Hyderabad, rep.by its Business Manager,Mr.G.S.N.Prasad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner,Hyderabad 2 The Additional COmmissioner, (Advertisement Section) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad 3 USM Business System Private Limited (Authorized Advertisement Fee Collection agent of GHMC) 1-8-319./2, Patigadda Road,Behind Ford Showroom Begumpet, Secunderabad-500003 .....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 a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropraite writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name board and board name fixed by the out lets of the petitioners in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 414,19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents 1 to 3 not to interfere or remove the name boards erected by the petitioners in 27 out lets of the petitioners. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SURYA PRAKASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 9258 of 2009 Between: M/s Vishal Retail Limited, No.4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, Troop Bazar, Abids, Hyderabad- 001 Rep by its Regional Manager Mr. Madhani Tank, ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Additional Commissioner (Advt.) Hyderabad. 2 M/s USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., (Authorised Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of GHMC) NO. 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Raod, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016 .....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 a Writ of Mandamus or any ther appropriate Writ or Order or direction in declaring the action of the 2nd REspondent in demanding the advertisement fee of Rs.1,68,682/- vide notice in Serial No.851 dated 08.01.2009 by letter dated 08.04.2009 is illegl, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.TEJPRAKASH TOSHNIWAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 9268 of 2009 Between: M/s. Shilpi East Court Restaurent & Bar Rep. by its Partner, P. Ravi Kanth Reddy, S/o. Ananth Reddy R/o. 4-5-66, Hayath Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement Section, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 USM Business Systems Private Limited, # 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad. .....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 appropraite Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Board fixed on the parapet wall of the business premises of petitioner at Plot No. 1 & 2, Survey No. 7/C, Margadarsi Colony, Near Ashta Lakshmi Temple, R.K. Puram X Road, Kothapeta, Hyderabad, as Advertisement and issuing demand notice No. 359 dated 6-4-2009 demanding to pay advertisement fee as illegal, arbitrary and against the Section 421 of HMC Act and without jurisdiction. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 9308 of 2009 Between: Swagath Bar & Restaurant, Near Sushma Theater Vanasthalipuam, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri S. Prabhakar Reddy S/o. Srisailam Reddy, aged 38 yrs R/o. 5-4-179, Kamalanagar, Vanathalipuram Main Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation , Rep. by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioenr, Advertisement, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Tank bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business Systems Private Limited 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom Secunderabad. .....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 a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices on 9-4-2009 vide proceedings No. 245/AD1/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in serial Nos. 19873 under Section 421 R/w Section 622 of the Municipal Corporation Act 1955, treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place and consequently demanding the fee for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 9349 of 2009 Between: Bharti Airtel Limited, Splendid Towers, Opp. Begumpet Police Station, HUDA Road, Begumpet, rep. by its Senior Executive-Legal Seshu c, S/o. Late C.R.P. Sastry, aged 45 years, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad-500 003. .....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 issuance of the impugned notice dated 7.3.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent on behalf of the respondent corporatilon demanding payable of amountof Rs.22,320/- towards the alleged advertisement fee as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of 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.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER:- As the point involved in these five writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondents. These writ petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondent-Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name boards fixed by them on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in these writ petitions is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, these writ petitions are also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks. On such representations being filed, the respondents shall consider them and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 30th April, 2009 bcj