HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.7670 and 7690 of 2010 DATE: 8-4-2010 Between: Zero Stock Retail (P) Ltd. .. Petitioner And 1. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation And others … Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION Nos.7670 and 7690 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carries on business under a registered Trade Mark called “Corner Stone”. They claim to have established various outlets for the purpose of running their retail garment stores in the twin cities including in Ranga Reddy District. They affixed sign boards over various locations for the convenience of their customers and for easy identification of the shops in question. While matters stood thus, the agents of the 2nd respondent are said to have come over to the retail garment outlets of the petitioner and to have called upon them to pay the advertisement fee through cheques/demand drafts in their favour, i.e., in favour of “M/s USM Business Systems Private Limited” within seven days from the date of receipt of the notices. Hence, the writ petitions. In similar circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, held that the power to demand a fee or tax is specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons are naturally to be the officials of the Corporation itself; notices issued by an agency on behalf of the Corporation is contrary to law; Section 169 requires any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee to be credited to the consolidated fund of the Corporation; the permission accorded by the Corporation to collect the fee was totally opposed to the scheme of the Act; and the notice issued to the petitioners, requiring them to pay the fee through cheques/demand drafts in favour of the second respondent, was in clear violation of the specific provisions of the Act. The impugned notice was quashed as it did not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Act. Following the said judgment, the impugned demand notices are quashed as they do not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from taking necessary action afresh in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _______________ 8th April, 2010 pnb