IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13906 of 2003 Between: M/s Oorja Designer, Salwar, Kameez, Rep.by its Proprietor, Rajiv Shroff, S/o Shree Kant Shroff, 6-3-456/A/1, Model House, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, (West Zone) Advertisement Section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Hyderabad. .....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 more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name board/Board frame fixed by me on the parapet wall of my business place are as covered by Section 420 and 421 of H.M.C.Act and consequently demanding the fee vide Notice dated 27-1- 2003 vide Pro.No.7862/AI/WZ/Advt./MCH/2002-2003 for the same, is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.SESHADRI GOALLA Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER : In this Writ Petition the Petitioner has questioned the validity of the notice, dated 27-01-2003, issued in proceedings No.7862/AI/WZ/Advt./MCH/2002-2003 in exercise of powers under Section 421 read with 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. In the aforesaid notice, respondents demanded the petitioner company to pay an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards advertisement fee alleging that displaying of Neon/Glow sign Boards by the petitioner company amounts to an advertisement within the meaning of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. At the stage of admission, this Court granted stay by order dated 28-07-2003. Neither there is any counter-affidavit filed, nor there is any representation on behalf of the respondents. When the matter is taken up, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Kasturi Brothers Dress Materials and Saree Shop, Hyderabad Vs. MCH[1] this Court dealt with the demands, which were issued under Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act and the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court referred to above. I have also gone through the judgment referred to above. The issues, which are decided in the above case, squarely apply to the facts of the case on hand. Hence, following the judgment referred to above, the Demand Notice, dated 27-01-2003 issued in Proceedings No.7862/AI/WZ/Advt./MCH/2002-2003, is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. In the light of the directions issued by this Court in the judgment referred to above, the petitioner is permitted to file its objections on the proposed demand within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this Order. On filing such objections, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. Subject to above directions, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. ___________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 02nd July, 2009. skmr [1] 2007 (1) ALD 481