THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6807 of 2010 Date: 29.03.2010 Between: M/s. Vivek Watch Company, a Proprietary concern rep., by its Proprietor Sri G.D. Srinivas Rao. … Petitioner and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad rep., by its Commissioner and two others. … Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.6807 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Arun, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and, at their request, the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. The petitioner is carrying on business of sales and services of watches and clocks. He displayed a Vinyl Sign Board within the business premises for identification of the shop. The 3rd respondent issued the impugned proceedings dated 22.01.2010 calling upon the petitioner to pay the requisite fee through cheques/DDs in their favour i.e., in favour of M/s 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 petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. Date: 29.03.2010 ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J MRKR