HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18724 of 2006 DATE: 29.04.2014 Between:
Creamline Dairy Products Ltd., Motilal Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad Rep. by its Managing Director ... Petitioner And The Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, rep. by its Commissioner, Hyderabad & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18724 of 2006 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 18.08.2006 issued by the 3rd respondent calling for the petitioner to pay advertisement fee stated therein in favour of the 3rd respondent.
3. The petitioner is carrying on business in Dairy Products and has been making advertisements about their company dairy products on the vehicles, which are using for transportation and also on the push carts and in addition to it, they have been making advertisements on some glow sign boards/flex and paintings and they have been paying the necessary fee to the Municipal Corporation. While so, the 3rd respondent vide its letter dated 03.04.2006 informed the petitioner that they were awarded a contract by the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for collection of advertisement fee and in pursuance of the same, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- by way of demand draft on 20.05.2006 towards advertisement fee payable for the year 2006-07. The 3rd respondent again issued two notices on 18.08.2006 demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards advertisement fee on push carts and mobile vehicles and an amount of Rs.2,13,776/- towards advertisement fee on dealer boards, glow sign boards and wall paintings etc. Challenging the issuance of notice by the 3rd respondent, the present writ petition was filed.
4. A single Judge of this Court disposed of WP No.19867 of 2009 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.”
5. Since the impugned notice is not in accordance with the provisions of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, it is set aside and the 1st respondent is given liberty to issue fresh notice in accordance with law.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 29.04.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 1 WRIT PETITION No.18724 of 2006 Date: 29.04.2014 BSS