IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12983 of 2009 Between: M. Srinivasa Raju S/o. Suryanarayana Raju Shivabagh, S.R. Nagar, Hyderabad, R/o. Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Near Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 USB Business Systems Private Limited, D.NO. 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in authorizing the 2nd respondent to collect advertisement fee, is without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of H.M.C. Act, 1955, unconstitutional and declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the demand notice dated 01.06.2009 to the petitioner for payment of advertisement fee is without jurisdiction, highly arbitrary, contrary to the Sections 421, 521 and 622 of the H.M.C. Act, 1955 without any basis, violative of principles of natural justice, illegal and unsustainable. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Counsel for the Respondents : (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.12983 OF 2009 ORDER : The petitioner is running a Hotel at Hyderabad having obtained a provisional Trade License under Sections 521 and 622 of The Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 (for short, ‘HMC Act, 1955’) from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the action of the respondents in seeking to collect advertisement fee in respect of the name-board of the petitioner’s hotel erected on the top of the hotel building. It is pleaded that the 2nd respondent who claims to be the authorized agent of the 1st respondent Corporation issued a notice dated 1.6.2009 under Section 421 read with Section 622 of the HMC Act, 1955, demanding a sum of Rs.29,321/- towards advertisement fee. The said action is challenged by the petitioner contending that the authorization to the 2nd respondent to collect advertisement fee is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the HMC Act, 1955. It is also contended that since the petitioner had obtained a trade license from the Corporation under Sections 521 & 622 of the HMC Act, 1955, he is not liable to pay any other fee in respect of the hotel being run by him. It is further contended that the action under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955, can be taken by the Corporation only when no permission is obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad to carry on trade under Section 622 of the HMC Act, 1955. Since the petitioner had already obtained a license under Section 521 of the HMC Act, 1955, according to the petitioner, the question of collecting advertisement fee under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955 does not arise. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner in detail as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation. Section 521 of the HMC Act, 1955, enumerates certain trades and operations not to be carried on, without a licence. Similarly, Section 622 of the HMC Act, 1955, provides the procedure for grant of licences and written permission under the Act including the fees chargeable. There can be no dispute that the provisional trade registration and licence dated 19.04.2008 was granted to the petitioner for running the hotel business in terms of Sections 521 & 622 of the HMC Act, 1955. However, as per Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955, no person shall without the written permission of the Commissioner, erect, exhibit, fix or retain any advertisement whether now existing or not, upon any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955, the impugned demand notice dated 1.6.2009 was issued by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the authorization granted by the 1st respondent Corporation. The validity of similar demand notices issued under Section 421 of HMC Act, 1955, levying advertisement fee was considered by this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and by judgment dated 28.09.2006 this Court held that to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, the Corporation must satisfy itself first that the provisions are attracted and then the fee can be levied. Following the above said decision, several writ petitions were disposed of by this Court setting aside the demand notices issued under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955, and directing the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of the trade licence possessed by the petitioner on payment of licence fee of Rs.46,431/-, he is not liable to pay any further charges towards advertisement fee. On a careful reading of Sections 421 & 521 of the HMC Act, 1955, I do not find any substance in the said contention. A plain reading of the above said provisions make it clear that the liability under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955 is different and distinct from the requirement of obtaining a trade licence under Section 521 of the HMC Act, 1955. Hence, merely on the ground that the petitioner is holding a trade licence, he cannot be absolved from the liability under Section 421 of the HMC Act, 1955. However, as held by this Court in W.P.No.5825 of 2006 & batch, the petitioner can be fastened with such liability only if the Corporation is satisfied after making an independent enquiry that the provisions are attracted to his case. Accordingly, following the order in the above said batch of writ petitions, the impugned demand notice dated 1.6.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made, the Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 02.07.2009 gbs Note:- CC by tomorrow. (B/O) gbs