IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 15509 of 2009 Between: Swathi Tiffin Center, 1-7-206-208/88 & 89, M.G. Road, Paradise Circle, Secunderabad, Rep.b y its Partner Sri K. Krishna S/o. K. Srinivas Rao, Aged 41 Years, R/o. 201, Venkatadri Apartments, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation rep.by its Special Officer & Commissioner Tank Bund Road Hyderabad 2 The Additional Commissioner Advertisement Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Hyderabad 3 U.S.M Business Systems Private Limited 1-8-319/2 Patigadda Road Behind Food 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 will 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 notices 23-02-2009 vide proceedings no 245/Advt/GHMC/2008-09 in Serial No.2803 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 such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.15509 of 2009 ORDER: In this writ petition the petitioner questioned the demand notice dated 23.02.2009 issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in exercise of power under Section 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the subject matter of the writ petition is covered to be disposed of in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch, dated 28.09.2006, wherein it was held 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…” 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. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand notice dated 23.02.2009 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 respondents 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. ----------------------------------------- (JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY) 31.07.2009 vs To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{SPJS}