IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15288 of 2004 Between: A.Ranjit Reddy, S/o. A. Bal Reddy, R/o. 16-11-16/M/6/1, East Prashanth Nagar, Moosarambagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ... PETITIONER AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep., by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep., by its Additional Commissioner, Tank Bund, 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 may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned notice No.7/201/Advt/MCH/2004-05 dated 05-08- 2004 as arbitrary, illegal, without any jurisdiction and violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set-aside the Impugned notice dt.05-08-2004 No.7/201/Advt/MCH/2004-05. Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. D. JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY, S.C. for MCH 1 & 2: The Court made the following: Order: In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the demand made by the respondents, by notice dated 05-08-2004, for payment of advertisement fee, in exercise of powers under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. When the writ petition is taken up, it is submitted by the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent-corporation that an identical issue has been considered by this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Hyderabad v. Additional Commissioner (Finance), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1] and the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the said judgment. I have perused the aforesaid judgment of this court. Having regard to the issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition, the same is covered to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of this court. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to submit a representation to the respondents and on filing such representation, the respondents shall consider the said representation/objection relating to the applicability or otherwise of Section 421 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and decide the same in accordance with the decisions referred in the aforesaid judgment of this court. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. August 3, 2009 MRR ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP {RS} [1] 2007 (1) ALD 312