IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 8893 of 2009 Between: 1 Lakme Beauty Saloon, 16-11-477/6/1, Beside Andha Bank ATM, Dilsukh Nagar, Hyderabad,. Rep by is Partner, P. Sharmila, w/o. Sharath Kumar, aged 24 yeas, R/o. 401, Jayabharathi Towers, Dwarakupuram, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 2 R.S. Brothers, 4-1-372 to 374, Opp : GPO, Abids, Hyderabad. 3 R.S. Brothers, 16-11-739/A. Opp : Kalainikethan, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. 4 R.S. Brothers, 9-36, Lalithanagar, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad. rep by its Manager,, Sri T.N.V. Murali Krishna, S/o. Sri T. Srirammurthy, aged 40 years, R/o 45, MIG-II, Muskhar Mahal, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer & Commisioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business, Systems Private Limited, 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notice 03-4-2009 vide Proceedings No. 245/AD1/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in Serial Nos. 15859 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 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 8897 of 2009 Between: Hotel Brundavan & Bar 4-102 and 4-111, Opp. Mega Theater, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad rep. by its Partner A. Harikishan Rao, S/o. A. Rajeswar Rao Aged 50 Yrs, R/o. 1B, Indra Prasta Apartments, Raj Bhavan Road, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, rep. by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3 U.S.M. Business Systems Private Limited, 1-8-319/2, patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices on 23.4.2009 vide proceedings No.245/AD1/Advt/GHMC/2008-2009 in serial Nos. 26933 under section 421 R/w Section 62 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 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 WRIT PETITION NO : 8925 of 2009 Between: Great Prabhat Circus, Rep by its Manager Mr. Reynold Paul, S/o. Late P.J. Paul, Aged about 55, S/o. No. 169/171, Opp : KPHB Colony, Hyderabad - 500 072, Permanent R/o. Parmbil House, South Eroo Post, Tripunithari Town, Erniakulam District. Kerla ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 M/s. USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd. 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Roas, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad - 500 003. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the Demand Notice 542, dt. 22-4-2009 issued by the 2nd respondent onbehalf of the 1st respondent corporation demanding the petitioner to pay on amount of Rs. 1,06,305/- towards the alleged advertisement fee as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and the principles of natural justice and to pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.C.S.N.RAJU Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER:- As the point involved in these three writ petitions is one and the same, these matters are taken up together for disposal by this common order. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the unofficial respondent. These writ petitions are filed questioning the action of the respondent-Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name boards fixed by them on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matters are taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in these writ petitions is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, these writ petitions are also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks. On such representations being filed, the respondents shall consider them and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 28th April, 2009 bcj