THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P.NO.5799 OF 2001 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. As per the writ affidavit, the petitioners, who are six in number, are the companies, involved in the business of erection and display of hoardings, after obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad under the provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). All the petitioners were issued with the impugned notices dated 8.3.2001 and 12.3.2001 to regularize deviations and un- authorized hoardings, by paying the requisite amount and they were further directed to pay the balance amount and also to file self assessment returns for advertisements displayed in vinyl painting for renewal of period beyond 31.3.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. Though, in the writ affidavit, it is stated that the special officer cannot exercise power under Section 622 of the Act and that the licence fee has to the fixed by the Commissioner with the sanction of the Corporation and that writ petition is filed with regard to fixing of the rate of tax vide proceedings No.3583/Advt/95 dated 1.2.1996, and that W.P.No.9588/1999 is filed, challenging notification dated 14.4.1999, issued by the Corporation imposing licence fee, I am of the considered view, that the said averments are not at all relevant, and W.P.No.9588/1999 was dismissed by this court on 20.07.2005, as having become infructuous. The issue in the impugned notice is relating to regularization of deviations and unauthorized hoardings alleged to have been displayed by the petitioners and renewal of period beyond 31.3.2001, by paying the balance amount and hence the averments made in the writ affidavit relating thereto, are not being referred. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that the impugned notices are issued without any enquiry and the notices are vague and without any details with regard to the alleged deviations or unauthorized hoardings and hence the petitioners are handicapped to answer the said notices and this amounts to violation of the principles of natural justice and also non-application of mind. In support of this contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge of this court in W.P.NOS.10933 and 10934 of 2006 dated 23.11.2006 and the judgment of the Apex Court reported in OM PRAKASH SHARMA v. M.P. AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM[1]. He further contended that the tax levied shall be commensurate to services rendered by the Corporation, but in the present case, the corporation is not rendering any service and that the hoardings are being erected on the private property and that without rendering any services collecting tax, cannot be sustained. 5. The respondents filed counter affidavit and learned standing counsel for the corporation supporting the impugned notices, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. There is no dispute that for erecting hoardings, written permission as contemplated under Section 420 of the Act is necessary and Sections 596 and 597 and schedule (U) and (V) of the Act, enables the authorities to collect fines and prosecute the defaulters. There is also no dispute that the petitioners have also taken written permission from the Corporation and carrying on its business. The only dispute in this writ petition is with regard to issuance of impugned notices seeking the petitioners to regularize deviations/unauthorized hoardings to pay the balance amount and also to file self assessment returns for advertisements displayed in vinyl painting and pay the difference of amount for renewal beyond 31.3.2001. At this juncture it is necessary to note the impugned notices. The relevant portion of the impugned notice dated 8.3.2001 issued to the 1st petitioner, is extracted as under for better appreciation: “Under Section 420(1) of HMC Act, 1955, no person shall without the written permission of the Commissioner, erect, fix or retain any Sky-sign. If any changes, additions or alternations made to the Sky- sign, the written permission or renewal by the Commissioner shall become void. The Municipal Corporation had appealed to all the Advertisers through the Public Notification cited, to regularize their un-authorized advertisements by filing self-assessment returns along with necessary permission fee. But some of the agencies have not regularized their unauthorized hoardings/deviations so far. The Corporation has taken up a survey of all the existing hoardings in MCH limits and noticed many un- authorized hoardings/deviations from the information furnished regarding size, type of advertisement in the applications given to MCH by the advertisers. Identification of the Headings erected has been established by joint inspection along with staff of the advertiser concerned. As per the survey, the details of deviations/unauthorized hoardings to be regularized pertains to you in Circle No.I to VII are enclosed. The Corporation is giving a final opportunity to your agency to regularize deviations/ and un-authorized hoardings by paying the required amount. As per the physical verification in Circle s No.I to VII you have to pay an amount of Rs.53,71,977/-. Out of which you have paid an amount of Rs.27,84,119/- leaving a balance of Rs.25,87,858/-. Further, you are requested to file self-assessment returns for the advertisements displayed in viny painting and pay the difference amount as per the enclosed monthly rates. Hence, you are requested to pay the balance amount in respect of hoardings along with Vinyl advertisement fee, if any located in Circle I to VII within (7) days from the date of receipt of this letter. Otherwise action will be initiated as per the provisions of HMC Act, 1955. For any assistance/clarification, please contact the Advertisement Officer, MCH.” 7. From the above impugned order it could be seen that the staff of the Corporation has undertaken the survey of all the existing hoardings within the limits of MCH and noticed many unauthorized hoardings and deviations and therefore as per the survey, the details of deviations/unauthorized hoardings were enclosed to the notice and opportunity was given to regularize such deviations and unauthorized hoardings by paying the required amount. Therefore, as the required particulars were enclosed to the impugned notices, the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notices are bereft of any particulars and that they are vague, cannot be sustained. 8. Further, under the proceedings dated 12-3-2001, as the advertisers are not taking renewal of permission for advertisement hoarding by paying necessary fee prior to the commencement of renewal period and are paying fee in installments through out of the year, by referring to Section 421(3) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the corporation sought to file the returns along with necessary renewal feel in full, to examine the proposals for renewal and further directed to pay the advertisement fee for renewal of hoardings for the year 2001-02. Hence, requiring the petitioners to pay the balance fee and seeking particulars for renewal, cannot be interfered with by this court. 8. The next contention of the petitioner is that the Corporation is not providing any services and since the fee fixed was not commensurate with the services provided, it cannot collect the fee. This contention also cannot be countenanced for the reason that the hoardings displaying advertisements, have to be regulated for public safety and further it is stated in the counter affidavit that the fee was fixed by the Commissioner by taking into consideration the relevant factors like the cost of the inspection, supervision and regulation of advertising, which have gone up tremendously and the same is only proportionate to the various services rendered by the Corporation and the fee was fixed only after obtaining sanction from the Corporation as per the procedure contemplated under Section 622 of the Act. It is further stated that even the petitioners have paid the fee prescribed for the new hoardings erected for which permission was sought. In view of the averments made in the counter affidavit, I am of the view that the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the services rendered by the Corporation, is not proportionate to the fee levied, is without any basis and moreover levying the fee is within the domain of the Government. 9. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ----------------------------------------- 28—04—2011 [1] (2005)10 SCC 306