WP/25716/2009 of The Yellow Chilli (Hot Rocks) a unit of R.S. Square Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation on 30 December 2015

ORDER:

This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the writ petitioner seeking the following relief/s:- “….to issue an appropriate writ more particularly one in the nature of writof Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in treating the nameBoard fixed on the parapet wall of the business premises of petitioner atPremises No. 23 & 24, 4[th] floor, Kimtee Square, Road No. 12, Banjara Hills,Hyderabad as Advertisement and issuing demand notices demanding topay advertisement fee and threatening to remove the name board withoutconsidering explanation submitted by petitioner, as illegal, arbitrary andagainst the Section 421 of HMC Act and without jurisdiction and to passsuch other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case.”

(Reproduced verbatim)

I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the writpetitioner and the learned standing counsel for the GHMC appearing for therespondents 1 and 2. None appeared for the 3[rd] respondent/ unofficialrespondent.

The case of the writ petitioner, as set out in the writ petition, in brief,is this:- “The petitioner is doing hotel business in the name and style of‘Yellow Chilli (Hot Rocks)’ after obtaining a licence from the erstwhileMunicipal Corporation of Hyderabad. While so, the 3[rd] respondent, whowas said to have been an authorised agent of the respondents 1 and 2 tocollect certain fee/tax in respect of advertisements, had served a demandnotice dated 26.09.2009 on the petitioner by treating the name board of thepetitioner’s business premises as an advertisement board or a hoarding andinter alia stating that the 3[rd] respondent is an authorised agent ofrespondents 1 and 2 for collection of advertisement fee. The petitioner’sname board, which was erected or which was displayed on the parapet wallof the business premises does not come within the purview of the provisionof Section 21 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955. Therefore, no permission is required to be obtained for displaying such a name boardon the parapet Wall of the business premises of the petitioner and that onsuch name board, no fee is collectable by the Municipal Corporation ofHyderabad or its agent. Before the impugned demand notice was issued,no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner by serving a show-cause notice and directly a demand notice demanding fee was served onthe petitioner by the third respondent, a private agency of respondents 1 and2. The respondents are threatening to dismantle/demolish the wall onwhich the name of the petitioner’s hotel was written. The action of therespondents is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law andis illegal, arbitrary and without any authority. Hence, the present writpetition is filed to quash the demand notice.”

The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, while making submissionsin-line with the pleaded case, places reliance upon two decisions of thisCourt in Rama Devi Multi Speciality Dental Clinic and others Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and others[[1]]and Kasturi Brothers,Dress Materials and Saree Shop, Hyderabad Vs. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Hyderabad and another[[2]]and submits that the subjectmatter is a covered matter and that therefore, the writ petition may bedisposed of by setting aside the demand notice, which is impugned anddirecting the GHMC to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make itsrepresentation and then consider the issue once again afresh and takeappropriate decision in regard to the levy of fee on the name board of thepetitioner in question and pass appropriate orders in that regard inaccordance with the procedure prescribed by law.

I have gone through the decisions cited supra. The learnedstanding counsel for GHMC would submit that the GHMC has no objectionfor the petitioner seeking the relief as now stated by the learned counsel forthe writ petitioner and for passing appropriate orders.

Recording the said submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is allowed in part and the demand notice dated26.09.2009 issued by the third respondent is quashed. Accordingly, thepetitioner is directed to make a representation to the GHMC within a periodof four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and, onreceipt of such representation from the petitioner, the respondents 1 and2/GHMC shall decide the issue of the liability of the petitioner to pay the feein question and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible,however, in strict accordance with the procedure established by law. Thereshall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shallstand closed.

30[th] December, 2015Bvv

______________________

M.Seetharama Murti, J

[1]2010 (3) ALT 302[2]2007 (1) ALD 481