IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10999 of 2009 Between: M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, 6th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016. rep. by its General Manager (Finance) ..... PETITIONER AND Kadapa Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Commissioner, Kadapa, Kadapa District. .....RESPONDENT 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 issuance of the impugned notice in Roc.No.1421/05/G1 dated Nil by the respondent corporation without giving any details about the place and nature of boards straight away demanding payment of Rs.3,000/- towards the alleged advertisement fee as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent: MR.S.I.NEWTON The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent in issuing the impugned notice in RCC No.1421/05/G1, dated: nil demanding to pay advertisement fee, without giving any details about the place and nature of boards, as illegal, arbitrary. 2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that in identical circumstances, W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2006 holding as under: “…..to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Corporation must satisfy itself first that the provisions are attracted and hence the fee can be levied. This exercise has to be made in individual cases…” 3. It is also brought to my notice that following the said order, W.P.No.6715 of 2009 and etc., were disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 4. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand notice in RCC No.1421/05/G1 is set aside and the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made, the Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. _____________ G.ROHINI, J Dt. 23.06.2009 RAR THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 10999 of 2009 DATED : 23-06-2009