1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2926/2011. Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2011. Heard Shri Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for petitioner, Shri Kale, learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 1 and Shri S.M. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent no. 2. A Bill under Section 154 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 demanding licence fee for advertisement for period 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2008 (arrears) and from 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2009 (current) formed subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 2082/2009. The petition was disposed of on 2 22.06.2010 by giving liberty to petitioner to raise appropriate objection before the Corporation authorities. Petitioner accordingly raised objection on 01.07.2010. It appears that the licence fee demanded was of 37 glow sign boards and total amount then demanded was Rs. 2,00,928/-. The amount was deposited because of orders of this Court by the petitioners. In the objection raised, petitioners only claimed breach of principles of natural justice, but did not raise any disputed question of fact. Though they contended that the Corporation has not verified the actual extent of sign boards, the number of sign boards displayed on show rooms or then as sky signs, was not disclosed by them. The details of glow sign on show rooms are also not given to point out that the same could not have been construed as an advertisement. In this background, the competent Authority (Estate Officer of Nagpur Municipal Corporation) has heard the learned counsel for petitioner and rejected the representation. That rejection is questioned before this Court. Again similar 3 arguments are being advanced. It is apparent that the burden was upon petitioners to show that how many glow signs they have erected, their location and placement and to demonstrate that same did not qualify to be advertisement. That has not been done. The authority has further found that the provisions of Policy No.31[1], dealing with name boards of shops and commercial establishment was very clear. This observation is also not challenged by furnishing necessary details. In reply filed, the Corporation has pointed out that amount of Rs. 2,16,347/- (without interest and penalty) was demanded by the Corporation and a notice for removal of the illegally displayed glow sign was issued on 15.02.2011. The notice for removal is annexed by the petitioner along with the petition. The notice does not mention any demand made by the corporation or then its fate. It is apparent that the corporation has to raise a bill under Section 154 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act for period for which it claims that 4 amount and thereafter it can proceed further to recover it in accordance with Chapter XII of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act. It is also apparent that if such steps are initiated, the petitioner gets an opportunity to file appeal. Hence with direction to respondent nos. 2 and 3 to proceed further to recover the alleged amount of Rs. 2,16,347/- as disclosed in paragraph no.15 of the reply, as per Chapter XII of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, we dispose of the petition. Needless to mention that as this demand is for subsequent period, all questions can be raised by the petitioner and can be looked into by the respondent Corporation. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd