IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12734 of 2009 Between: 1 M/s. Hotel Midland Sandarshini, Premises No.10-5-2/B, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 2 M/s. New Milap Sandarhsini, Premises No.1-2-103/18, Park Lane, SD Road, Secunderabad. 3 M/s. Vijaya Sandarshini, Premises No.5-1-913/914, Opp. Medical College, koti Circle, Putli Bowli, Hyderabad. Petitioners 1 to 3 Rep. by it's Partner H.S. Sudhindra S/o. Late H.K.Srinivas Aged 38 Yrs, R/o. Flat No.111, Dandu Classic Tower, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement Section, GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 USB Business Systems Private Limited, # 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, Begumpet, Secunderabad. ...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 an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Boars fixed on the parapet wall of the business premises of petitioners as Advertisement and issuing demand notices demanding to pay advertisement fee as illegal, arbitrary and against the section 421 of HMC Act and without jurisdiction and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of thecase. Counsel for the Petitioner : MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 &2 : R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12734 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the respondents in treating the name boards fixed on the parapet wall of the business premises of the petitioners as advertisement and thereby issuing notices dated 25.3.2009, 2.3.2009 and 5.6.2009 to the petitioners demanding to pay advertisement fee, as illegal, arbitrary and against Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that in identical circumstances, W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2006 holding as under: “…..to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, the Corporation must satisfy itself first that the provisions are attracted and hence the fee can be levied. This exercise has to be made in individual cases…” It is also brought to my notice that following the said order, W.P.No.6715 of 2009 and etc., were disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the petitioners herein are also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand notices dated 25.3.2009, 2.3.2009 and 5.6.2009 are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission granting liberty to the petitioners 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. 29.06.2009 RAR THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No : 12734 of 2009 DATED : 29-06-2009