IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 7180 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Devi Deluxe Mess 9-4-43, Opp Railway Station, Represented by its Partner Sri Guttikonda Narayan Rao S/o.G.Hanumanchand, Aged about 29 years, R/o. 10-1-700, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. 2 M/s. Devi Deluxe Lodge 9-4-182, Opp Railway Station, Represented by its Partner Sri Guttikonda Narayan Rao S/o.G.Hanumanchand, Aged about 29 years, R/o. 10-1-700, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business Systems Private Limited, 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, behind Ford Showroom, Secunderabad. .....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 respondents in issuing the notice dated 7.3.2009, proceedings No.245/Ad1/Advt/GHMC-2008-2009 vide Challan No. 5464 and dated 10.3.2009 Proceedings No. 245/Ad1/Advt/GHMC-2008-2009 vide Challan No. 5741 respectively treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the Petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place and consequently demanding the fee for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.SRIHARI Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANAN WRIT PETITION No.7180 of 2009 O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name boards fixed by them 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 petitioners to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks. The respondents shall consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 7th April, 2009 v v