IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 9020 of 2009 Between: Srinivas Soni S/o.late Ramkishan Soni R/o.H.No.6-3-850/13 Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Represented by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circle-V, Khairatabad, 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 or order or direction specially one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to make reassessment of the House tax in respect of H.No.6-3-850/13, Panjagutta, Hyderabad before making any further demand of tax from the petitioner as per the directions made in M.A.No.168/2004 dated 21.3.2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad and declare the action of the respondents in issuing repeated demand notices in a mechanical manner and threatened action of recovery of amount from the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, violative of Art. 14, 21 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. L. PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: KALPANA EKBOTE (Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Circles 3 & 5) The Court made the following: ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by Mrs. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. At the request of the learned Advocates, the petition is finally heard today. The petitioner has made a grievance in the petition that without following procedure of law, impugned notices have been issued to the petitioner, whereby tax payable by the petitioner has been enhanced. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that even in the past, without following the procedure prescribed under Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, the Act), tax had been enhanced and therefore the validity of the demand notice had been challenged by filing an appeal, being M.A No. 168 of 2004, under Section 282 of the Act. A copy of the order passed in the said appeal has been annexed to the petition, whereby the notice demanding tax at the enhanced rate had been quashed and set aside. Even thereafter, it is the case of the petitioner that without following the procedure, a demand notice has been given for payment of enhanced tax. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation could not deny the fact that special notice had not been given to the petitioner before the tax had been enhanced. Looking to the aforesaid admitted fact, in our opinion, the demand notices are bad in law and, therefore, they are quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 29.4.2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J bnr