THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23332 of 2010 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by two individuals seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the action of the respondent Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad and its officials in removing the name boards of the petitioners and their retailers and distributors exhibited on such business premises located at various places without issuing any notice as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the writ petitioners and Ms. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel, who took notice on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 herein. Since she has received necessary instructions, she has given consent for disposal of this Writ Petition right at this stage. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the boards, which were put up by the writ petitioners, do not attract the requirement of obtaining prior permission from the Municipal Corporation, in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’), but nonetheless, the learned counsel is fair enough in pointing out that if only the respondents have put the petitioners and others on notice, requiring them to remove such advertisement boards or hoardings, appropriate cause would have been shown by the writ petitioners to the satisfaction of the respondents as to why such permissions are not required. The learned counsel would point out that sub-section (3) of Section 421 clearly mandates that the Commissioner may, by notice in writing, require the owner or occupier of the land, building, wall, hoarding or structure upon which such advertisement board or hoarding is erected, exhibited, fixed or retained, to take down or remove such advertisement. It, therefore, contemplates that a notice in writing is required to be given and the response or reply furnished thereto has got to be considered appropriately before a final decision is taken either to retain or pull down such advertisement boards or hoardings. The learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, no such notice has been issued, but however, the respondents and its authorities are proceeding unilaterally and highhandedly removing the advertisement boards. Ms. Kalpna Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation would point out that wherever a licence or a written permission is required to be obtained under the 1955 Act, the same is liable to be given for a specified purpose and for a specified period, imposing appropriate restrictions and conditions and if is permissible, appropriate fee or licence fee also becomes chargeable thereon in terms of Section 622 of the Act. Since it has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that the notice as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 421 of the Act has not been issued to the petitioners, I am saved for the present of the bother to decide as to whether the advertisement board or hoarding put up by the writ petitioners or their retailers or distributors amounts to an advertisement of the business that is carried on at that particular premises or otherwise. Suffice for the present to observe that even if the advertisement board put up by the writ petitioners or any one concerned therewith is found to be objectionable, not being compatible to the provisions contained in the Act, the same can be ordered to be pulled down or removed only by issuing a notice in writing and thereafter considering the objection filed in response thereto, but not otherwise. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy at issue, I direct the respondents not to remove any advertisement boards or hoardings either put up by the writ petitioners, their retailers or distributors or any other commercial establishments, which are similarly placed to that of the writ petitioners herein, without putting such person on notice, as is required in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 421 of the Act and affording him an opportunity to put forth his defence thereto. It is needless to observe that the respondents are required to consider the objection raised and pass appropriate order in accordance with law thereafter and without passing any such final order, the advertisement boards or hoardings shall not be unilaterally removed. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with this direction. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 21st September 2010 ksld