THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2751 of 2008 Date: 12.02.2008 Between: M/s.Hotel Swagath Veg & Non-Veg, Swagath Marriage and Function Hall, Hyderabad … Petitioner AND N.Navodya India Enterprises Pvt. Limited and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2751 of 2008 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing demand notices, dated 03.01.2008 and 07.01.2008, whereunder the petitioner was called upon to pay advertisement fees in respect of certain advertisement boards. Heard Sri A.Tulsi Raj Gokul, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. At the hearing, it is pointed out that the impugned orders whereby advertisement fee is demanded, are not sustainable in view of the fact that they were issued under the provisions of Sections 114 to 118 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (for short ‘the 1965 Act’), whereas the power to levy and collect the advertisement fees is vested in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation under the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the 1955 Act’). Though the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly stated that this contention is not raised in the writ petition, since the issue relates to the very jurisdiction and application of the relevant provisions of the Act, I am of the view that the notices are liable to be set aside on the ground that the respondents have invoked the provisions of the 1965 Act instead of invoking the provisions of the 1955 Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the boards in respect of which fees are demanded do not fall within the expression of Sign Board or Advertisement Board under the provisions of the 1955 Act and that without disposing of the petitioner’s objections communicated vide legal notice, dated 02.02.2008, respondent No.2 authorised respondent No.1 to collect the advertisement fees. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Kasturi Brothers, Dress Materials and Saree Shop, Hyderabad v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and another[1]. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the judgment cited above, the writ petition is disposed of. Respondent No.2 shall call for the objections from the petitioner against the proposed levy and collection of fees and after considering the objections of the petitioner, if any received, he shall pass appropriate orders. Till then, respondent No.2 shall not collect any advertisement fees from the petitioner in respect of the boards, which exist in its premises. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP.No.3539 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 12th FEBRUARY, 2008 kvni [1] 2007(1) ALD 481