IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4991 of 2008 Between: M/s. Oriental Bank of Commerce, 3-5-10601/1-1061, Narayanguda, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager, Mr. Y. Venkat Rao, S/o. Veerbhadra Lakshman Rao, Age : 47, R/o. Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Rep. by its Commissioner. 2 Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tank Bund Road, Rep. by its Additional Commissioner ( Advertisment ) Parking Complex Abids, Hyderabad. 3 M/s. Nest Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ( Authorised Advertisement Fee Colletion Agent of M.C.H. ), M.I.G.9 B, Indian Airlines Colony, Street No.3 Opposite Airport, Begumpet , Hyderabad-16, Rep. by its Managing Director/ Authorised Signatory Shri B.G.K.Murthy .....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 to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the notice issued by the Third Respondent for and on behalf of the First Respondent dated 28-12-2007 bearing no. 659/Advt./MCH/2005-06/2006-07/2007-08 Sl.No. 31400 purported to be under Sections 421 and 622 of H.M.C. Act demanding payment of advertisement fee of Rs. 13,635/- as shown in the notice is illegal, void abinition, violation of principles of natiral justice and bad in law and be pleased to pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.ARUN Counsel for the Respondents: MR.R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY The Court made the following order: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4991 of 2008 ORDER: The writ petitioner is a Nationalised Bank, and it raises a question, relating to the susceptibility of the Sign Boards, put up by it, for the proceedings to be initiated in terms of Sections 421 and 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, as it contends that the Boards put up by it, do not fall within the meaning of the expression “Advertisement”, and hence, it is not liable to pay the tax prescribed therefor. It is pointed out that in a batch of cases viz., Writ Petition No.4172 of 2006 and batch, decided on 06-03-2007, the Division Bench, to which I am a party, while declining to answer the questions of law raised; disposed of the writ petitions, granting liberty to the petitioners therein, to make representations to the respondents-Municipal Corporation, within a period of two weeks, so that those representations may be considered, and speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners, would be passed by the Corporation. However, in the instant case, the 3rd respondent, an agency, on whom the power to collect this tax has been conferred by the Municipal Corporation; has raised its grievance that, without complying with the directions issued by this Court, the writ petitioner is avoiding the payment of tax, and hence, a tight timeframe should be prescribed for the entire exercise to be accomplished. I consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the writ petitioner to submit its detailed representation, on or before 25-03-2008, before the Municipal Corporation, which will decide the same as expeditiously as possibly, viz., on or before 30-04-2008. For any reason, if the writ petitioner does not file its detailed representation, with a copy to the 3rd respondent herein, it shall be construed that the writ petitioner shall not have any grievance subsisting thereafter. With this, the writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Date: 10-03-2008 KLP