IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 11620 of 2009 Between: Anno's Electrolysis & Obesity (P) Ltd., Rep by its Manager-Ch, Tirupathi Rao, S/o. Late Ch. Ranga Rao, aged 73 years, Plot No.90, 5th Floor, Sai Plaza, Red Rose Cafe Lane, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Additional Commissioner (Advt) Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 3. The USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd., 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Show Road, Secunderabad. .....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 pass appropriate Writ, order or direction, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing impugned proceedings No.245/AD1/Advt./GHMC- 2008-09 dated 26-03-2009 demanding the advertisement fee for erection of Advertisement Boards and further direct to pay the advertisement fee to the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, unreasonable, illegal, improper, in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11620 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent Corporation dated 26.03.2009 demanding advertising fee for erection of advertisement boards as arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that in identical circumstances W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2006 holding as under : “.. … to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, 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.” It is also brought to my notice that following the said order, W.P.No.6715 of 2009 and etc., were disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand dated 26.03.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made, the Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.06.2009 kvrm THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11620 OF 2009 DATED: 16.06.2009