IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7502 of 2009 Between: 1 M.S.T. Sayi S/o. M.V. Koteshwar Rao R/o. Shop No.1-1-287/A/1, Bapunagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. 2 T. Mahesh Kumar S/o. Vijaya Kumar C/o. Shop No.1-1-287/A/1, Bapunagar, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad-20. 3 Miss. K. Sirisha D/o. K.V. Neela Chalam R/o.3-14-12/A, Srinivasapuram, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad-13. ... PETITIONERS​ AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by the Addl. Commissioner (advertisement), GHMC, Hyderabad. 2 USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., (Authorised Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of GHMC), rep. by the Manager, 1-8-319/2, Pattigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad-3 ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 and 2 in issuing an order in the nature of notice dated 30.03.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, opposed to the principles of natural justice and opposed to the established provisions of the Act and consequently set aside the notices dated 30.03.2009 with Sl.Nos. 12594, 12593 and 12592. Counsel for petitioners: Ms. K. Pallavi Counsel for respondent No.1: Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy The Court made the following Order: With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, this writ petition is being disposed of at the state of admission. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners question notices dated 30-03-2009 issued to them demanding payment of advertisement fee as contemplated under Sections 421 read with Section 622 of H.M.C. Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The said notices are issued to the petitioners, treating the name boards which they have displayed in front their shops as advertisements, within the meaning of Section 626 of the Act. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that their trade names were displayed in front of their shops and the same is exempted from advertisement fee in view of the proviso to Section 421 of the Act. 4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were not given any opportunity and notice before issuing the demand notices. Similar question fell for consideration before this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Additional Commissioner (Finance), MCH[1]., wherein this court, while declaring the impugned action therein as illegal, has held that the same cannot be sustained and permitted the petitioners therein to make a representation, so as to adjudicate the issue by considering such representation. Even in the present case, it is a matter to be considered by the respondents whether the name boards displayed by the petitioners amount to advertisement, so as to collect advertisement fee as contemplated under Section 421 of the Act. 5. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the judgment referred above, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioners to submit their objections, for demand of advertisement fee, by way of making a representation to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. If any such representation is filed by the petitioners, respondent No.1 shall consider the same, pass appropriate orders and communicate the same to the petitioners. Till such time, the impugned notices remain suspended. No order as to costs. _________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. April 9, 2009 MRR [1] 2007 (1) ALD 312