THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.2288 of 2005 BETWEEN: M/s. Prasad Media Corporation Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Mr. Ralph Sunil PETITIONER And 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri S. Ravi Counsel for the respondents: G.P. for Municipal Administration & Urban Development and Dr. Y. Padmavathi. The Court made the following: ORDER: Heard Sri S. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. The orders dated 29.01.2005 in Lr.No.2269/AD5/Advt/MCH/20(4)/372 passed by the 2nd respondent under Section 420 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) directing the petitioner to pay advertisement fee and the EMD as per the demand notice dated 12.07.2004, is under challenge in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner is not liable to pay any advertisement fee as the hoardings erected fall within the exemption under the Act. The petitioner has constructed a multiplex theatre for the purpose of exhibiting motion pictures. It has erected hoardings for the purpose of advertisement of the motion pictures currently screening of a dimension of 20” x 40” on the northern side and 35” x 35” on the western side of the building in addition to illuminated hoardings. The petitioner claims that the hoardings are not sky signs or other devices, and the hoardings erected are on the wall of the theatre building, which do not exceed three feet in height. It is therefore, the case of the petitioner that its advertisements fall within the exemption contained in Section 421 of the Act. Before adverting to the aforesaid contentions, it may be mentioned that earlier challenging the same action of the 2nd respondent demanding advertisement fee, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.12565 of 2004. The 2nd respondent corporation opposed the said writ petition asserting that the height of the boards erected by the petitioner exceeded the prescribed limits and that the illuminated boards which are displayed are visible from all parts of the street, therefore they do not come under the exempted categories of hoardings. This Court disposed of the said writ petition by orders dated 23.09.2004 directing the Commissioner to pass appropriate orders on the explanation submitted by the petitioner with regard to the dispute, in the light of Section 421 (4) (b) (ii) of the Act. It appears that after disposal of the said writ petition, the Additional Commissioner (Advertisements) issued orders on 26.10.2004 reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition without really deciding the dispute. Therefore, the petitioner challenged the said orders by filing a writ appeal in W.A.No.1796 of 2004 against the orders in W.P.No.12565 of 2004. A learned Division Bench allowed the writ appeal by orders dated 22.11.2004 observing as follows. “When a notice was issued to the appellant on 12.07.2004, no doubt, the said notice also obliged the appellant to put before the respondent-Corporation as to whether the appellant is, or, is not liable for advertisement fee, or, whether or not the advertisement would require any permission from the Municipality. After such an explanation is offered, respondents are also under obligation to apply their independent mind in the light of the provisions of the Municipal Corporation Act, and, then take appropriate decision in accordance with law holding liability of the appellant, if any, and not in a mechanical manner and not to pass such an order reiterating its stand without taking note of the objection, if any. Decision has to be an independent decision after application of mind, and, not a mechanical decision, and, for that reason, we are inclined to allow the writ appeal setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the consequential order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Advertisement) on 26.10.2004 with direction to the respondents that fresh decision be taken in accordance with law after hearing the appellant. Respondents will give a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard, in which proceedings, appellant may put-forth its case before the respondent corporation.” In the light of the specific direction in the writ appeal, it was incumbent on the competent authority to take a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the Commissioner of the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation passed the impugned order without complying with such direction. As mentioned above while it is the case of the petitioner that the advertisement hoardings erected by it fall within the exemption provided under Section 421, the case of the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation is that no such exemption is available, as the height of the hoarding is more than the prescribed limit. I am not inclined to express any opinion in this regard, but at the same time, it must be mentioned that this has been the consistent controversy between the parties. Even in the earlier writ petition, the same is the stand taken by both the parties. In that view of the matter, the learned Division Bench categorically directed that the petitioner should be heard before a decision is taken. The said direction cannot be said to be without any purpose. If an opportunity of hearing had been given, perhaps the petitioner would have explained by filing relevant material to show that the hoardings are within the prescribed limit or that the hoardings do not come within the expression of sky sign. In fact, the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 24.01.2005 which also does not appear to have been thoroughly examined. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for de novo consideration with the following directions. 1. The Commissioner of the 2nd respondent Municipal Corporation shall conduct hearing by issuing notice to the petitioner to be present on any appointed day. 2. On such notice, the petitioner shall appear without fail and present his case claiming exemption from the payment of advertisement fee under Section 421 of the Act. 3. The Commissioner after hearing the petitioner shall consider the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 31st March, 2011 Js.