HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8145 of 2010 13th April 2010 Between: Stellar Project Management Consultants … PETITIONER(S) and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad rep. by its Commissioner and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.8145 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri Nazir Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. At their request the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Petitioner is a sole proprietary concern and is carrying on business in Engineering Consultancy services. It fixed a name board on its premises for the purpose of identification of its location by its customers. While matters stood thus, the agents of the third respondent came over to the petitioner’s office and issued notice under Section 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioner to pay the requisite advertisement fee through cheques/demand drafts in their favour i.e. in favour of “USM Business Systems Private Limited” within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Both counsel would agree that the subject matter of this Writ Petition is covered by a judgment of this Court in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch dated 31.12.2009 wherein this Court held that the notice issued by the third respondent, calling upon the petitioners to pay advertisement fee as mentioned in the notice through Cheques/DDs in their favour within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, was is in violation of the law. This Court held that the power to demand a fee or tax was specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons should be the officials of the Corporation itself; Section 169 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act,1955 (for short – ‘the Act’) required that any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee must be credited to its consolidated fund; the permission accorded by the Corporation to the Agency to collect the fee, which partook the characteristics of tax, was totally opposed to the scheme under the Act; and the notices issued to the petitioners requiring them to pay the fee “through Cheques/DDs in favour of USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd.” was in violation of Section 169 of the Act. The impugned demand notice was, accordingly, set aside. While several contentions are urged in challenge to the validity of the demand notice, I consider it wholly unnecessary to examine any of them in as much as the impugned demand notice is liable to be set aside on the short ground that the third respondent could not have directed the petitioner to pay the advertisement fee through Cheques/DDs in their favour as such a demand contravened Section 169 of the Act. The impugned demand notice is, accordingly, quashed. Needless to state that this order will not preclude the 1st respondent-Corporation from initiating proceedings afresh, in accordance with law, against the petitioners with regards levy and demand of advertisement fee. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 13th April 2010 CVRK