Allowed

Hotel Annapurna, H.No.6-2-940, v. Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC25 Sept 2014WP/3626/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A hotel operator challenged removal of a name board without prior notice. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding the fee was taxable under Section 197 requiring specific procedure, notices violated Sections 169 and 633, and permissions are subject to Section 421 exceptions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notices set aside; writ petition allowed following ratio in Rama Devi case.

Hotel Annapurna, H.No.6-2-940, Vs Greater… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 3626 OF 2008

¶3

DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Hotel Annapuran, Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by prop. Sri Kuldeep Singh

¶6

….Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad And ors.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 3626 OF 2008

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶14

The petitioner is a hotel carrying on its business in premises No.6-2-940, Opp.Sadan College, Khairatabad, by erecting the name board on the parapet wall of the premises. The petitioner also obtained necessary license by paying requisite fee etc., to the authorities concerned. While so, the staff of the third respondent came to the petitioner-Hotel on 19.2.2008 and attempted to remove the name board of the petitioner. On enquiry by the petitioner, it was noticed that the

¶15

petitioner is liable to pay advertisement fee of Rs.7,234/- for the year 2007 and Rs.10,044/- for the year 2008. However, no notice was issued prior to the action taken by the third respondent. Challenging the action of the respondents, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶16

The issue raised in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic, Hyderabad Vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad { 2010 (2) ALD 856} wherein this Court held as follows:

¶17

“ Hence the Writ Petitions are allowed holding that:

¶18

(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;

¶19

(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;

¶20

(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 subsection (1) of Section 421 of the Act; and to stipulate fee therefore, commensurate with the service or regulatory activity, and in its discretion to levy tax under Section 197(1), duly following the prescribed procedure.”

¶21

Following the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision, the present Writ Petition is allowed in terms thereof.

¶22

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if in the

¶23

Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶24

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶25

DATED 25^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 Msnro

Hotel Annapurna, H.No.6-2-940, v. Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Annapurna, H.No.6-2-940, v. Greater hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s. Sivarama Krishna Rice Industries Private Limited, Vs The Central Power Distribution Company of a.P., Ltd.

M/s. Navaloka Mahila Mandali Dwakra Group Vs The Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal

Adarsha Municipal Workers Wifes Group Vs The Commissioner

Smt. G. Yellamma Vs The District Collector, Hyderabad District

K. Ravinder Mudiraj, Vs The Hyderabad Urban Development Authority

Gyan Vatika Education Society, Rep. by its Secretary Vs Government of a.P., Rep. by its Secretary