IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6185 of 2009 Between: M/s. Haridwar Exclusive Restaurant, No.17, Masetty Plaza, Opp: Sind Bank, P.G.Road, Secunderabad, represented by its Partner Amith Sha S/o.Madan Mohan Das Shah, R/o.4-6-465, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, represented by its Commissioner, having its office at Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner (Advt.) Advertisement Section, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, having its Office at Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 USM Business Systems Pvt. Ltd. having its office at 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Show Room, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue appropriate order or orders direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondent No.1 & 2 in authorizing the respondent No.3 to collect the tax illegal and arbitrary and further declare the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the notice and demanding the fee from the petitioner as without jurisdiction illegal and further the notice issued by the 3rd respondent vide No.245/ADI/Advt/GHMC/2008-09, vide Serial No. 3115 dt. 2.3.2009 as null and void and not binding on the petitioner and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.NYAYAPATHI PRASHANT Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioner on the ground that the name board fixed by it on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks. On such representation being filed, the respondents shall consider the same and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioner. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 25th March, 2009 bcj