IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 9120 of 2009 Between: John Player, 16-11-740/5/A/9&10, Tirumala Complex, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner P. Shankaraiah, S/o. P. Moulaiah, Aged 59 Years, R/o. 16-118, Srikrishna Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business, Systems Private Limited, 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford 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 ore particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices on 08.04.2009 vide proceedings No. 245/AD1/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in serial No. 17111 under Section 421 R/w Section 622 of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 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. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No.9120 of 2009 Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent–Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in treating the name board exhibited by it on the parapet wall of his business premises as covered under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is also questioning the consequential demand notice issued by the respondents to pay the advertisement fee for exhibition of the name board. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The learned standing counsel for the respondent-Corporation submits that the issue raised in this writ petition is not res integra and this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch, dated 28.9.2006, has already considered the issue and quashed the impugned demand notices. It was held that to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Act, 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. Further, this Court has remitted the matter to the Corporation and gave opportunity to the writ petitioners to make their representations individually and the Corporation was directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. This has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances, following the above said judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 dated 28.9.2006, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned demand notice is quashed. The petitioner is also given liberty to make a representation to the respondents as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks and the Corporation shall take an early decision in relation thereto thereafter. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:29.04.2009 VGB