IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.10519 of 2006 Between: 1 Chandana Brothers, H.No.1-1-230/11/2, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. 2 Chandana Brothers, H.No.16-11-739/1/2, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad. (Both the petitioners are rep., by its Manager Y.Uma Maheswara Rao, s/o Subramanyam, aged about 33 years, R/o Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad rep., by its Commissioner, Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Addl. Commissioner (Finance), Advertisement Section M.C.H., Tankbund Road, Hyderabad. 3 Next Enterprises Private Limited (Authorized Advertisement Fee Collection Agent of MCH) MIG-9-B, Indian Airlines Colony, Street No.3, Opp: Airport, Begumpet, 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 a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Board/board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place are as covered by section 420 and 421 of H.M.C.Act and consequently demanding the fee vide proceedings dated 25-3-2006 in Serial No.431, 432, 433, 434/Advt./Next/MCH/2005-2006 for the same is illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.3:MR.ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION No.10519 of 2006 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2, and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent-Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioners on the ground that the name board fixed by them on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of 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 petitioners to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks. The respondents shall consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. N.V. RAMANA, J Date: 20.01.2009 va/msv