THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10801 OF 2010 Date: 11.08.2010 Between: M/s. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager-Hyderabad, Mr. Muneer Khan ..... PETITIONER AND The Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10801 OF 2010 O R D E R : This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “To issue appropriate Writ, direction, or order more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or order/direction of a like nature declaring the eleven impugned notices bearing Nos. 087; 090; 105; 108; 110; 132 to 137, vide Roc. No. G3/6261/1/2009, dated 01.12.2009, 01.12.2009; 02.12.2009; 02.12.2009; 02.12.2009 and 09.03.2010 respectively as illegal, void, against the natural justice, unenforceable and contrary to the provisions of the Warangal Municipal Corporation Act.” When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this court in W.P.No.23354 of 2008 and batch, which was allowed holding as under: “(a) the advertisement fee levied by the Corporation is in the form of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and it could not have been levied without specific authority and in accordance with the prescribed procedure; (b) the notices impugned in the writ petitions do not accord with Sections 169, 633 and other relevant provisions of the Act, and they are accordingly set aside; and (c) the Corporation is entitled to insist on the permissions being obtained for erection and display of advertisements, subject, however, to the exceptions covered by the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 421 of the Act; and to stipulate fee therefor, commensurate with the service or regulatory activity and in its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197 (f), duly following the prescribed procedure.” The learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed the fact that the petitioner herein is similarly situated. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the order in W.P.No.23354 of 2008 and batch. No costs. ​ ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 11.08.2010 Ivd