IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 24774 of 2008 Between: Idea Cellular Limited, 5-9-62, KLK Estates, Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad, represented by its Senior Manager, Legal, Sri. B.Arun Madhav S/o. B.V.R. Murthy Aged 34 years, Resident of Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Jangaon Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Jangaon, Warangal District. .....RESPONDENT 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 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 as arbitrary, illegal and ultra virus to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Municipality Act, 1955 and in violation of the well settled principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.RAMA RAO GHANTA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.POLISETTY RADHA KRISHNA(SC FOR MPL(TA)) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 24774 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been ﬁled by Idea Cellular Limited assailing the action of the respondent in issuing notice dated 14-10-2008 making a demand for payment of Rs.18,640/- towards advertisement fee. 2. The petitioner is a company registered under the companies Act having its oﬃce at 5-9-62, KLK Estates Fateh Maidan Road, Hyderabad. It is engaged in the business of telecommunication services under the license from the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India. It established various outlets for the purpose of marketing various services provided by it. According to the petitioner, boards displayed at the said business places mentioning the name of the company and the business undertaken by it do not constitute as advertisement and therefore, no fee is payable by it. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri Polishetti Radha Krishna learned standing counsel of Jangaon Municipality takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 4. The issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in Kasturi Brothers, Dress Materials and Saree Shop, Hyderabad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad[1]. In the said decision, similar notice issued came to be quashed directing the petitioner therein to submit representations and invite orders thereon. It is trite to refer para 12 of the judgment and it is thus: “In the light of the fact-situation, wherever the statute ordains a particular act to be done in a particular manner, the same may have to be done as speciﬁed therein unless and otherwise any other procedure be permitted to be followed in accordance with law. There cannot be any two opinions relating to this aspect. Making demand, collection of fee or collection of tax, these are all aspects governed by speciﬁc statutory provisions. It is needless to say that the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad being creation of a statute and being a statutory body, the duties expected to be discharged or performed by the Corporation to be performed by the Corporation itself or through its oﬃcials and the realm or the operation of the private agencies and the scope and ambit thereof in relation thereto would be very limited. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to the contract said to have been entered by the Corporation in favour of a private agency. This Court also is not inclined to express any further opinion whether the private agency who had been entrusted with this duty had made excessive demands or only such demands which were speciﬁed by the Municipal Corporation as such. But however, in the light of the language employed in Section 421 of the Act, this Court is of the considered opinion 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/demand can be levied. This exercise to be made in individual cases and in the peculiar facts and circumstances especially in the light of the decision of the Apex Court referred in ICICI Bank Limited and another Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others (Supra) and also the views expressed by the Division Bench of this Court referred in Greeting Corrier Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned demand notices as such cannot be sustained and accordingly the said demands made are hereby quashed and the matters are remitted to the Corporation to give opportunity to the individual writ petitioners to make their individual representations and let the Corporation consider and look into such objections which would be raised by the respective writ petitioners and pass appropriate orders in this regard in accordance with law. Accordingly, let the petitioners make such representations as early as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks and the Corporation to take an early decision in relation thereto thereafter”. 5. In that view of the matter, the demand notice issued by the respondent is hereby quashed and the petitioner is directed to submit his representation within two weeks and thereafter the respondent shall consider the representation and take early decision in relation thereto thereafter. 6. With the above observation, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________________ Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy 12th November, 2008. Note: C.C. in two days B/o KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 24774 OF 2008 12th December, 2008. [1] 2007(1) ALD 481