Anno's Electrolysis & Obesity (P) Ltd v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation
Case at a glance
- Bench
- G ROHINI
Outcome
Disposed of
set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 s. 421
Judgment
Cause title
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.SREE RANGA RAO Counsel 3&5)KALPANA EKBOTE the Respondents.: (SC FOR MCH CIRCLES The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11620 OF 2009
ORDER:
Operative part
This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the proceedings of the 1st respondent Corporation dated 26.03.2009 demanding advertising fee for erection of advertisement boards as arbitrary and illegal. When the matter is taken up for consideration, it is brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation that in identical circumstances W.P.No.5825 of 2006 and batch was disposed of by order dated 28.09.2006 holding as under :
.. … to attract the provisions of Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955, Corporation must satisfy itself first that the provisions are attracted and hence the fee can be levied. This exercise has to be made in individual cases.
It is also brought to my notice that following the said order, W.P.No.6715 of 2009 and etc., were disposed of with a direction to the Corporation to consider the cases of the petitioners therein individually and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, following the above said orders, the impugned demand dated 26.03.2009 is hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If any such representation is made, the Corporation shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 16.06.2009 THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.11620 OF 2009 DATED: 16.06.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: set aside and the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 — s. 421.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.