HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18574 of 2006 DATE: 29.04.2014 Between:
M/s Green Dale Shop, Fesh Fruit & Vegetables, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad ... Petitioner And The Commissioner of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad & another … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.18574 of 2006 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent.
2. This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 31.08.2006 issued by the 2nd respondent calling for the petitioner to pay advertisement fee stated therein in favour of the 2nd respondent.
3. The petitioner is carrying on business in fresh fruits and vegetables in the name and style of ‘Green Dale’ in the premises bearing No.3-6-386, Fair View Plaza and a sign board was displayed in the business premises, after obtaining the permission from the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent fixed the advertisement fee at Rs.7,700/- and the same was paid under receipt No.170 dated 28.01.2005. While so, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned notice dated 31.08.2006 demanding Rs.12,276/- for the sign board on the ground that he is the authorised agent for the 1st respondent for collecting advertisement fee. The advertisement fee demanded by the 2nd respondent is in variance from the advertisement fee paid for the previous years. Challenging the issuance of notice by the 2nd 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 4 WRIT PETITION No.18574 of 2006 Date: 29.04.2014 BSS