IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 5067 of 2008 Between: Devi Advertisers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Mentey Venkateswamy, S/o. Late Venkataramaiah, R/o. Door No.18-9-51, Near Bhimeswaraswamy Temple, N.B. Road, Bhimavaram, W.G. Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Tadepalligudem Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tadepalligudem, W.G. Dist. 2 Executive Engineer (R&B), Kovvur, West Godavari District. .....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 writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned Tender Notification in Roc.No.315/03/G1, dated 20.02.2008 contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.487 dated 20.09.2000 and also contrary to the permission given to the petitioner by the 2nd respondent vide proceedings No.148/Permision/JTO2/07 dated 28.09.2007 as illegal, null and void and for a consequential order directing the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to carry on the business as per the proceedings No.148/Permision/JTO2/07 dated 28.09.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent by collecting the taxes as per the schedule and to pass such other order or orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.DHANAMJAYA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 5067 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch. Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S. Nageswara Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Municipality. The petitioner had been accorded permission by the Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings, Kovvur, West-Godavari District, through his proceedings dated 28-09-2007, to erect and display 50 Advertisement Boards, of the size of 2’ x 4’, on the electrical poles in the 1st respondent-Municipal area. In accordance with these proceedings, dated 28-09-2007, of the Executive Engineer, the petitioner seems to have erected Boards thereon. For the purpose of regulating the collection of the advertisement tax, by the Local Municipalities, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has framed the A.P. Municipalities (Advertisement Tax) Rules 1967, and the same have suffered an amendment, in recent times, which was notified on 01-10-2000. For Selection, Special and First Grade Municipalities, the advertisement tax, liable to be collected for a space up to one square meter; is fixed at Rs.180/-, and for space beyond one square meter, at the rate of Rs.270/-. The petitioner asserts that it not only erected the Boards, but also is continuously paying the tax to the local municipality. But, however, the 1st respondent had taken out a tender notification on 20-02-2008, for awarding the right to collect the advertisement tax for the year 2008-09. The writ petitioner apprehends that the 1st respondent-Municipality, in the guise of conferring right to collect the advertisement tax; is conferring right to erect the advertisement boards also. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel was very quick to point out that the 1st respondent-Municipality is only intending to confer on the successful bidders/contractors, the exclusive right to collect advertisement tax from all such persons, who have been advertising within the local limits of Tadepalligudem Municipal area, and that the bidder/contractor is not going to be conferred any right to carry on the erection of advertisement boards, by himself. I agree with the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that, what the 1st respondent-Municipality has intended to do through the impugned tender notice is, only to finalise the bid, in favour of the individual, or agency, which can collect the advertisement tax, on behalf of the 1st respondent-Municipality from various individuals, agencies, who have been carrying on advertisements, within the municipal limits of Tadepalligudem. Such a contractor, or highest bidder, has got no right to erect any advertisement boards, by himself, or remove any of the existing advertisement boards, either. He merely acts as an agent of the local municipality in enabling and helping it to realise or collect its revenue, viz., advertisement tax. I, therefore, do not consider it appropriate to admit this writ petition for any further inquiry in the matter. Hence, the writ petition stands disposed of, right at the stage. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J. Dt.11-03-2008. KO To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}