IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 3190 of 2009 Between: M/s. Swarovski Amrutha Topaz Building, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Rep. by is Proprietor, Sri B.S. Neelakanta S/o. Late B. Somasekharam, aged 46 yrs, R/o. 6-3-665/1, Panjagutta, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advertisement Section) Head office, Tank bund Road, Hyderabad 3 M/s.U.S.M.Business Systems Pvt Ltd., (Authorised Advertise ment Fee Collection of GHMC), 1-8-319/2., Patigadda Road Behind Ford Show Room 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 issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the business premises are covered by section 421 of H.M.C.Act and consequently demanding the fee vide proceedings No.245/AD1/Advt/GHMC-2008-09 dated 8.1.2009 as arbitrary, and illegal, and consequently set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.PRAKASH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioner on the ground that the name board fixed by it 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 matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition 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, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks. The respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioner. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 19th February, 2009 bcj