IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 6225 of 2009 Between: M/s. Sri Venkateswara Reddy Reddy Pure Ghee Sweets At Shop No. 2, Sobha Pavani Arcade, Rep. by its Propretor, Y. Hymavathi W/o. Ramachandra Reddy Occ: Business, aged 28 yrs, R/o. 2-2-1133/5/5 New Nallakunta, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund Hyderabad. 2 The Addl. Commissioner, Advertisement Section , GHMC, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 USM Business Systems Pvt. LOtd. # 1-8-319/2 Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Show Room 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 to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one iln the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the name Board fixed on the parapet wall of the business premises of petitioners at Shop No. (Pr.NO.1-9-114 to 117, Sobha Pavani Arcdade, Opp. Durgabhai Deshmukh Hospital, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad as Advertisement and issuing demand notice No. 143 (Sl.No. 7121 dt. 12-3- 2009) in proceedings 245/AD1/Advt/GHMC-2008 -09 demanding to pay advertisement fee and threatening to remove the name board without consideraing explanation submitted by petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and against the section 421 of HMC Act and without jurisdiction and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SREENIVASA RAO VELIVELA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following : O R D E R:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation appearing for respondents 1 and 2. The writ petition is filed questioning the action of the respondent- Corporation in demanding advertisement fee from the petitioner on the ground that the name board fixed by it on parapet walls of the business places are covered by Sections 420 and 421 read with Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the issue involved in this writ petition is not res integra and a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4172 of 2003 and batch dated 06.03.2007 has already considered the issue and disposed of the writ petitions giving liberty to the petitioners therein to make representations to the respondents within a period of two weeks and the respondents were directed to consider the representations of the petitioners and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioners. Following the same, this writ petition is also disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks. On such representation being filed, the respondents shall consider the same and pass speaking orders on all the contentions raised by the petitioner. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 25th March, 2009 bcj