IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 4077 of 2009 Between: M/s. Vodafone Essar South Limited, 6th Floor, Varun Towers II, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016 Represented by its General Manager (Finance) L.Krishna Kumar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation represented by its Commissioner, Kukatpally Circle, Hyderabad District. 2 M/s. Navodaya Enterprises, 1st floor, Srinivasa Compound, Kukatpally, 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 an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus the action of the respondents in threatening to take coercive steps for removal of the boards erected by the petitioner company at its business place, shops etc. without giving opportunity whatsoever and action of the 1st respondent in authorising the 2nd respondent to exercise the statutory power as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : Order: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the 1st respondent – Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in treating the name board exhibited by it on the parapet wall of its business premises as covered under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) and authorizing the 2nd respondent to exercise the statutory power. The petitioner is also questioning the consequential demand notice issued by the 2nd respondent to pay the advertisement fee for exhibition of the name board. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the respondent Corporation and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent 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 petitioner. In the circumstances, following the above said judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 dated 28.9.2006, this writ petition is disposed of quashing the impugned demand notice dated 29.1.2009 and giving liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the 1st respondent as early as possible, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the Corporation shall take an early decision in relation thereto thereafter within a period of four weeks. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.2.3.2009 msv