IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12032 of 2009 Between: M/s.Sri Venkat Reddy Pure Ghee Sweets Rep.by it's Partner Sri I.Venkat Reddy S/o. Ram Reddy Samrat Complex, Saifabad, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Chief Commissioner Tank Bund,Hyderabad 2 The Addl.Comnmissioner Advertisement Section GHMC Tank Bund,Hyderabad 3 USM Business Systems Pvt Ltd # 1-8-319/2 Patigadda Road Behind For 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 issue an appropriate 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 premises No 4-7-145 Sardar Patel Trust Bhavan Koti Hyderabad as Advertisement and issuing demand notices demanding to pay advertisement fee and threatening to remove the name board without considering explanation submitted by petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against the Section 421 of HMC act and without jurisdiction and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12032 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the respondents 1 & 2-Corporation dated 25.03.2009 & 06.06.2009 demanding advertising fee for erection of advertisement boards, as arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2-Corporation that in identical circumstances W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2006 holding as under : “.. … to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the Corporation must satisfy itself first that the provisions are attracted and hence the fee can be levied. This exercise has to be made in individual cases.” It is also brought to my notice that following the said order, W.P.No.6715 of 2009 and etc., were disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioner therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand notices dated 25.03.2009 & 06.06.2009 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made, the Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _______________ Justice G. Rohini Dt. 19.06.2009 mrb