THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7534 OF 2010 AND WRIT PETITION No.7545 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Mirzasafiulla Baig, Learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Kalpana Ekbote, Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. At their request the Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is carrying on business under a registered trade mark “MEDPLUS PHARMACY”. It has established various outlets for the purpose of running its pharmacy stores in the twin cities including in Ranga Reddy District. It is the Petitioner’s case that agents of 2nd respondent came over to the outlets/shops claiming to be the authorised agent of the M.C.H. for collecting advertisement fee and issued a notice bearing No.22588 for Rs.6,662.52/- dated 18.04.2009 under Section 421 read with Section 622 of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 for payment of Advertisement fee for the petitioner’s shops. The petitioner was called upon to pay the advertisement fee demanded through cheques/demand drafts drawn in their favour i.e., in favour of “USM Business Systems Private Limited” within seven days from the date of receipt of the notice. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by judgment dated 31.12.2009 in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, held that the power to demand a fee or tax is specifically vested with the Commissioner or any person authorized by him; such persons are naturally to be the officials of the Corporation itself; notices issued by an agency on behalf of the Corporation is contrary to law; Section 169 requires any amount received by the Corporation towards tax and fee to be credited to the consolidated fund of the Corporation; the permission accorded by the Corporation to collect the fee was totally opposed to the scheme of the Act; and the notice issued to the petitioners, requiring them to pay the fee through cheques/demand drafts in favour of the second respondent, was in clear violation of the specific provisions of the Act. The impugned notice was quashed as it did not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Act. Following the said judgment, the impugned demand notice is quashed as it does not accord with Sections 169 and 633 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude the first respondent from taking necessary action afresh in accordance with law. The Writ petitions are disposed of to the extent indicated above. However, in the said circumstances, without costs. Date: 23.04.2010 ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J MRKR