IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 18255 of 2008 Between: MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD., A company Incorporated under The Companies Act having its Branch Office at No. 4-1/A AND Registered Office at ONIDA House, G-1, M.I.D.C. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai Through its Attorney Mr. G.V.L. Shiva Kumar ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commis;sioner (ADVT) Advertisement Section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Having its Office at Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Nest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at MIG -9B, Indian Airlines Colony Street NO.3, Airport, Begumpet, Hyderabad. .....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 appropriate order/orders direction more particularly one in the name of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent NOs. 1 and 2 in not considering the oral reply given by the petitioner and delegating the power of collection of fees to Respondent No.3 and further the authority of Respondent No.3 in issuing the notice and demanding the fees from the petitioner as without jurisdiction illegal, and further the notice issued by Respondent No.3 along with bill No. NEPL/ONIDA/462/2008 dt. 5-5-2008 for Rs. 1,79,367/- as null and void and not binding on the petitioner and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18255 OF 2008 Order: This writ petition has been filed by MIRC ELECTRONICS LTD., a company incorporated under the Companies Act, with a prayer to issue appropriate order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents 1 and 2 in not considering the oral reply given by the petitioner and delegating the power of collection of fees to Nest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,– 3rd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal. 2. The 3rd respondent issued a demand notice dated 5.05.2008 to the petitioner to pay Rs.1,79,367/- towards charges for displaying the signboard for the period 2005- 06 to 2007-08. It is the contention of the petitioner that the signboards put up by it do not come under the purview of advertisement and, therefore, no fee is required to be paid. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1 and 2 did not consider the representation made by the petitioner and, therefore, necessary direction is required to be given to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the representation before taking any coercive action pursuant to the demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that no representation so far has been made by the petitioner. 6. The 3rd respondent has been conferred power by the Municipal Corporation to collect the tax. If it is the case of the petitioner that the signboards put up by it do not come under the purview of advertisement, it has to make a representation and invite orders thereof. There seems to be no written representation submitted by the petitioner to the respondents 1 and 2. In similar circumstances, a single Judge of this Court in his order, dated 28.05.2008, in W.P.No.11267 of 2008, directed the petitioner therein to submit a detailed representation, so as to enable the Corporation to take appropriate decision. 7. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad on or before 14.09.2008. Thereupon, the Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad shall take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible, preferably within two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J 22nd August, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 18255 OF 2008 22nd August, 2008.