The court disposed of two writ petitions challenging demand notices for advertisement fees by applying and upholding the principles laid down in a prior order from W.P.No.4595 of 2014.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
WRIT PETITION Nos.22300 AND 25515 OF 2015
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.No.22300 of 2015, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed by the petitioners seeking verbatim the following relief:
“… to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the demand notice dated: 06-01-2015, bearing Roc.No.155/2014/G1 to Piduguralla branch (Petitioner No.2), notice dated 05-11-2014 bearing Roc.No.1962/G1/2014 to Narasaraopet branch (Petitioner No.3), notice dated: 06-01-2015 & 20-05-2015 bearing No. nil to Chilkaluripet branch (Petitioner No.4), challans to Markapur branch (Petitioner No.5) and notice dated: 14.02.2013 bearing nil/2012/G1 issued to Sattenapalli branch (Petitioner No.6) to the Petitioners as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional apart from being violative of and contrary to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents not to remove any sign boards of the petitioner and its branches and pass such other order or orders in the interest of justice.”
W.P.No.25515 of 2015, under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is filed by the petitioner seeking verbatim the following relief:
“…to issue a Writ or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Demand Notice No. 1136/2015, dated 9.6.2015, demanding to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,391/- towards advertisement fee for Glow Sign Boards / Arches for the period from 1-4-2015 to 30.6.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, high handed, contrary to the Judgment of this Hon’ble Court made in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, dated 31.12.2009 and also the Judgment made in W.P. No. 4595 of 2014, dated 25.2.2014, apart from being unconstitutional, and consequently set the said demand notice dated 9.6.2015, by holding that the petitioner herein is not liable to any Advertisement Fee and pass such other and
2
further order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”
When these two Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents – Municipalities and Municipal Corporation are in agreement that the issues involved in these two Writ Petitions are squarely covered by the order, dated 25.02.2014, of this Court in W.P.No.4595 of 2014. A request is made to dispose of these Writ Petitions also in terms of the afore-stated order. A copy of the above stated order in the said Writ Petition is placed on record in W.P.No.25515 of 2015.
Having regard to the facts and submissions and for the reasons alike, as were mentioned in the afore-stated order, these Writ Petitions are also disposed of in terms of the afore-stated order, dated 25.02.2014, in W.P.No.4595 of 2014.
Office is directed to enclose a copy of the afore-stated order, dated 25.02.2014, in W.P.No.4595 of 2014 to this order.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions
shall stand closed.
____________________________ M.SEETHARAMA MURTI, J
July 31, 2018 MD
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the present writ petitions should be disposed of in terms of the order dated 25.02.2014 in W.P.No.4595 of 2014
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.4595 of 2014Affirmed¶13
W.P.No.4595 of 2014, dated 25.02.2014
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners
Respondents
M.SEETHARAMA MURTI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
