Commr. Ghmc, Hyd Another vs M/S. R.S.Brothers Retail Indian ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 4876 Tel

          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