Disposed

Greater Hyd. Mun. Corp., v. Asian Paints Ltd.

Telangana HC27 Sept 2022WA/128/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Hyderabad, disposed of the writ appeal preferred by GHMC against the Single Judge's order allowing writ petitions. The Court declined to quash the impugned order in these specific petitioner cases, noting that the same issue and order were already disposed of in a subsequent batch of appeals (W.A. No. 1900 of 2013).

What did the court decide?

The writ appeals are disposed of without continuing further hearing; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions stand closed.

Greater Hyd. Mun. Corp., Vs Asian Paints Ltd. — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^32s5 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 128 OF 2014

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause^'15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 31-122009 in WP No.2225812009 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep. by Additional Commissioner (Advertisement), Tank Bund road, Hyderabad - 500 063

¶10

...APPELLANT

¶11

AND

¶12

ASIAN PAINTS LTD., a company registered under the provisions of the lndian Companies Act, 1913 having its Registered office at 64, Shantinagar, Santa Cruz (East), Mumbai 400 055 and having its local office at pLot No.'104, S Malla Reddy Estate, Jayanagar, RTC Colony, Tribulgherry, Sec'bad, rep by its

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2014(WAMP. NO: 315 OF 2014)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 1o suspend the order of the Learned Single Judge in WP No. 22258 of 2009,dt:31/12l09

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. DAMODAR REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) (NOT PRESENT)

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N. SRINIVAS IYENGAR

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

TI.IE IION'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHI YAN

¶20

AND

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

¶22

WRIT APPEAL No.128 of 2Ol4

¶23

JUDGMENT: lPer the IlotL'blr ttrc^(.tiel JLtstice tJJJal tJlugor)

¶24

None appears for the parties on call.

¶25

We find that the issue raised in this urit appeal has alreadv been dealt w.ith by this Court in W.A.No.19O0 of 20I 3 and brrtch decided cn 23.O9.2022

¶26

That being the position, the prescnt u,rit appea,l is also disposed of in the abor,,e lines

¶27

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

¶28

stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

SD/.I. NAGALAKSHMI DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

One CC to SRI C. DAMODAR REDDY, (SC FOR GHMC) Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI N. SRINIVAS IYENGAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

¶34

(Along with the Court Order dt:23109/2022 in W.A.No. 1900 of 2013 and batch)

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710912022

JUDGMENT

WA.No.128 of 2014

1HE Si4 r(.
t
0 I JAl,l 202J
il
-l
Ga

¶42

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶43

(,5
-z

¶44

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF IUSTICE UIIAI BHUYAN

¶45

AND

¶46

THE HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE^(1.'.IlI IASIiAR RtrDDY

¶47

\Y.A.Nos.1900,¹⁸⁸² & lti8.l of²⁰¹³

¶48

CON{NION IUDGNIENT

¶49

Heard lvfr. Pasham Krishna Reddy, ieamed Standing Counsel, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Colporation (GFil{q for the appeilants

¶50

This writ appeal has been preferred against the common order dated 3I.12.2009 passed by tl.re leamed Single Judge allowing a bunch of writ petitions including W.P.No.9821 of 2009 out of which \fl.ANo.1900 of 2a1.J arises;^{rW.P.No.25559} of 2009 out of which V.ANo.l882 of 2aB anses and W.P.No.23232 of 2aa9 out of u4rich \fl.ANo.1883 of 2013 anses.

¶51

The related writ peritions were filed by respondent No.1 herein as the writ petitioners assailing notices issued by the GHMC authorities under Section 421 of the Hlderabad

¶52

¶53

i\4unicipal C.olporation Act, 1955 (briefly^'the Act' hereinafter) denunding adverrisement fee forthe boards displaytd bythem.

¶54

All the writ petitions were allowed by the leamed Single Judge bythe^{corrurron order dated 37.12.2a09,on the follou,ing} te r-l-ns:

¶55

Hence, the writ petitions are allowed holding that,

¶56

(a) The advenisement fee levied bythe Colporation is in the forrn of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and it could not have been levied without specific authoriry and in accordance with the prescribed procedure;

¶57

(b) Th. notices impugned in the writ petitions do not accord with Sections 769,633 and other relevant provisions of the Act, and they are accordingly set aside; and

¶58

(c) The^(brporation is entitled to insist on the permissions being obtained for erection and display of advertisements, subject, however, to the exceptions covered bythe proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 427 ol the Act; and to sripulare fee therefor, commensurate with the service or reguiatory activity, and in its discretion to levy tax, under Section 197(f), duly following the prescribed procedure.

¶59

Thus, leamed Single Judge held that the advertisement fee

¶60

levred by the GHMC was in the form of a rax referable to

¶61

-'l

¶62

Section 197 of the Act and couid not have been levied in the absence of anyspecific authoriry.

¶63

\.4rile admitting the appeals for hearing, ne find that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge has nor been sta;.ad. \Ve also queried learned counsel for the appellans as to whether any appeal(s) were filed against the aforesaid decision in respect of the other writ petitions as we do not find anv such appeals being ltted before us. Learrred corursel forthe appellants is unable to point out anlthing in this regard.

¶64

That being the position, we are of the vieu' that ii the aforesaid order of the leamed Single Judge in respect of the other writ petitions has not been challenged, the sanre has attained finality. k would be incongruous if a contrary view is taken only in respect of these three writ petitions while allor,ving the order of the leamed Single Judge to be sustained,/undisturbed in respect of the other writ petitions.

¶65

¶66

Having rcgard to the above, lve decline to continue funher

¶67

with these appeals.

¶68

\Vrit Appeals are accordinglydisposed of. No costs. As a seqr-rel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand

closed.

UJJAI BHUYAN, CJ

C.Y.BHASKAR REDD', J

D;rtc:23.09.2022 LLR

Greater Hyd. Mun. Corp., v. Asian Paints Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Greater Hyd. Mun. Corp., v. Asian Paints Ltd.

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

Bhadradi Vocational Jr. College, Khammam Dist. Vs Prl. Secy., Higher Education and 3 Ors.

Mr. Kotapati Ravi, And 3 Others Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Initiating Officer, And 2 Others

Risely Feeds Private Limited Vs The Adjudicating Authority

N. Narahari, Hyd Vs Prl. Secy., Mun. Admn, Hyd and 3 Ot

M/s Vibri Media Private Limited and another Vs Union of India and another

Hbl Power Systems Limited Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and 2 others