IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.18489 of 2009 Between: Trekkar Shoes and others ..... PETITIONERS AND The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep.by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the action of the respondent–Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in treating the name board exhibited by them on the parapet wall of their business premises as covered under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioners are 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 petitioners 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 petitioners. 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 notices are quashed. The petitioners are 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:03.09.2009 VGB