HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28645 of 2010
Date: April 21, 2014
Between:
1. Aradhana Foods & Juices Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, rep. by its Asst. Manager Marketing Kodede Kiran Kumar & 2 others.
… Petitioners And 1. The Greater Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad, Hyderabad District & 2 others.
… Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.28645 of 2010
O R D E R:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. Though the respondents have not filed counter- affidavit, in view of the settled law on this point, this writ petition is being disposed of.
1. e first petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, and it is conducting its business through various distributors spread all over the State of Andhra Pradesh. The first petitioner independently takes up advertisement of its products with various advertising agencies by hiring signboards, glow-
signs, sky signs with and without illumination apart from advertising through print and visual media. On earlier occasion when the first respondent issued a demand notice on 04.04.2006 informing the first petitioner that the advertisement boards of the petitioners are being displayed within the limits of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation by it and various distributors, the first petitioner submitted its representation on 29.04.2006 stating that they are not liable to pay any advertisement tax. When the first respondent insisted for payment of tax, they filed W.P. No.17595 of 2006 and a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the same by a common order dated 06.03.2007 stating that in view of the earlier decisions in National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad V. Additional Commissioner (Finance), Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad the question raised by the petitioners was a question of fact and many controversial facts have to be considered before coming to a conclusion as to whether exemptions granted under Section 421 of the HMC Act would be available to a particular petitioner or not. The writ petitions were ultimately disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to make representations to the respondents and the respondents were directed to consider the representations and pass appropriate orders. The representations of the petitioners were rejected by the first respondent on 06.08.2009 and demanded payment of the advertisement tax. When the petitioners again approached this Court in W.P. No.19867 of 2009, the same was disposed of on 31.12.2009 holding as follows:
“(a) The advertisement fee levied by the Corporation is in the form of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and it could not have been levied without specific authority and in accordance with the prescribed procedure;
(b) The notices impugned in the writ petitions do not accord with Sections 169, 633 and other relevant provisions of the Act, and they are accordingly set aside; and (c) The Corporation is entitled to insist on the permission being obtained for erection and display of advertisements, subject, however, to the exceptions covered by the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 421 of the Act; and to stipulate fee therefore, commensurate with the service of regulatory activity and its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197 (f), duly following the prescribed procedure.”
2. imilar writ petition, W.P. No.23332 of 2010, was filed before another learned single Judge of this Court challenging the action of the respondents in removing the name boards of the petitioners and their retailers and distributors exhibited on such business premises located at various places and the learned single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 21.09.2010 directing the respondents not to remove any advertisement boards or hoardings either put up by the writ petitioners, their retailers or distributors or any other commercial establishments which are similarly placed to that of the writ petitioners without putting such person on notice, as is required in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 421 of the Act and affording him an opportunity to put forth his defence thereto. The respondents were directed to consider the objections raised and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
3. rsuant to the said orders, now the respondents issued notices to the individual retailers on various dates in 2010. The said action of the respondents is challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that individual notices were issued to various retailers without issuing any notice to the first petitioner, who is the distributor of products, along with the advertisement to the various retailers and the individual retailers cannot answer this issue without issuing notice to the first petitioner. No individual notice is challenged in the present writ petition, but the learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the absence of any notice to the first petitioner, the individual notices to various retailers are unwarranted and irregular. This argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be appreciated.
4. far as the first respondent is concerned, each individual retailer, who is displaying notice board, is under an obligation to answer the notice issued to them and they have to pay advertisement fee as demanded in the notice issued under Section 421 read with Section 622 (2) of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. The impugned notice was issued for taking permission from the GHMC within seven days from the date of receipt of notice with a threat of action as per the provisions of the HMC Act, 1955.
5. erusal of the notice indicates that it cannot be held illegal as it does not bar the individual retailer from submitting his representation, if any, as directed by this Court in W.P.No.23332 of 2010 dated 21.09.2010. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners states that the first petitioner would submit its explanation/representation on behalf of various individual retailers to whom notices were issued by the first respondent for taking permission for displaying the advertisement boards and the first petitioner undertakes that various retailers would not raise the ground of non- representation/violation of principles of natural justice in the event of the first respondent hearing the first petitioner.
6. the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the first petitioner to submit its representation/objection to the notices issued to its retailers on various dates with regard to the advertisements exhibited by them for taking permission from the GHMC under Section 421 read with Section 622 (2) of the HMC Act, 1955 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months thereafter. Till an order is passed by the first respondent, the advertisement boards displayed by various retailers on behalf of the first petitioner shall not be removed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. No costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: April 21, 2014 BSB
87 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28645 of 2010
Date: April 21, 2014
BSB