THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
W.A.Nos.1900, 1882 & 1883 of 2013
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan)
Heard Mr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, learned Standing
Counsel, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC)
for the appellants.
2. This writ appeal has been preferred against the common
order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge
allowing a bunch of writ petitions including W.P.No.9821 of
2009 out of which W.A.No.1900 of 2013 arises; W.P.No.25559
of 2009 out of which W.A.No.1882 of 2013 arises and
W.P.No.23232 of 2009 out of which W.A.No.1883 of 2013
arises.
3. The related writ petitions were filed by respondent No.1
herein as the writ petitioners assailing notices issued by the GHMC authorities under Section 421 of the Hyderabad ::2::
Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) demanding advertisement fee for the boards displayed by them.
4. All the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge by the common order dated 31.12.2009, on the following terms:
Hence, the writ petitions are allowed holding that:
(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 permissions 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 therefor, commensurate with the service or regulatory activity, and in its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197(f), duly following the prescribed procedure.
5. Thus, learned Single Judge held that the advertisement fee levied by the GHMC was in the form of a tax referable to ::3::
Section 197 of the Act and could not have been levied in the absence of any specific authority.
6. While admitting the appeals for hearing, we find that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has not been stayed. We also queried learned counsel for the appellants as to whether any appeal(s) were filed against the aforesaid decision in respect of the other writ petitions as we do not find any such appeals being listed before us. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to point out anything in this regard.
7. That being the position, we are of the view that if the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge in respect of the other writ petitions has not been challenged, the same has attained finality. It would be incongruous if a contrary view is taken only in respect of these three writ petitions while allowing the order of the learned Single Judge to be sustained/undisturbed in respect of the other writ petitions.
::4::
8. Having regard to the above, we decline to continue further with these appeals.
9. Writ Appeals are accordingly disposed of. No costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
__________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2022 LUR