HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6722 of 2010 12th April 2010 Between: M/s.VIP Metro Luggage and others … PETITIONER(S) and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad, rep by its Commissioner and Special Officer and others … RESPONDENT(S) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6722 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri D.Radhakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners, 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. Petitioners eighteen (18) in number are carrying on business in different trades. They are running shops within the limits of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. To indicate their place of business, they installed name boards over their respective shops. They are all aggrieved by the notices issued by the 3rd respondent, on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2, calling upon them to pay 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 12th April 2010 CVRK Note: Issue copy in one week. B/o cvrk