IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12149 of 2009 Between: 1 Vasireddy Swagruha Foods, Phase No. III, Shop No. 4, Kalyannagar, Mothinagar X Roads, Hyderabad. 2 Vasireddy Swagruha Foods, Vengala Rao Nagar, Hyderabad 1 and 2 Rep by its Proprietor, Sri Chava Srinivas Rao, S/o. Narayana, Aged 45 years, R/o. Plot No. 117, Mytri Nagar Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Rep. by its Special Officer & Commissioner, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. 2 The Additional Commissioner, Advertisement, The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 3 USM Business Systems Private Limited, 1-8-319/2, Patigadda Road, Behind Ford Showroom, 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the notices dated 21.05.2009 vide proceedings No.245/Advt./GHMC/2008-2009 in serial No.42857 and on 02-4-2009 vide proceedings No.245/Advt./GHMC/2008-2009 in Serial No.14606 respectively treating the name Board / board frames fixed by the petitioner on the parapet wall of its business place and consequently demanding the fee for the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and in violation of the principles of natural justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.SRIHARI Counsel for the Respondents: R.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,SC FOR MCH 1,2,4&6 The Court made the following: 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 petitioner as advertisement and thereby issuing notices dated 02.04.2009 and 21.5.2009 to the petitioner demanding to pay advertisement fee, as illegal, arbitrary. 2. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner 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…” 3. 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. 4. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand notices dated 02.04.2009 and 21.5.2009 are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission granting liberty to the petitioner 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. 23.06.2009 RAR THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 12149 of 2009 DATED : 23-06-2009