NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FINANCE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF HYDRABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Writ Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Order since the questions of fact and the questions of Law involved being common.

(2.) These Writ Petitions are filed by the respective petitioners questioning the demand notices issued by the respondent on several grounds. In W.P.No.21813/2001 filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, the notice dated 20-8-2001 was questioned. It is stated that the petitioner-National Insurance Company Limited has been established under the Companies Act 1956 and is a statutory body established by the Union of India and it is a sister organisation of General Insurance Company. The main object of the petitioner Company is to cover the risk and give redressal by way of payment of compensation to the insured and to the third parties. The petitioner- Company is not intended to do business with people and it is not meant for any commercial business. It is also stated that the petitioner-Company is a Regional Office in Hyderabad which it operates throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. The signboard of the Regional Office of petitioner-Company was erected long back in the premises of Mogul's Court building. The name board of the petitioner-Company is meant for identification of its office which is located in the 3rd and the 7th floors of the Mogul's building. The Mogul's Court building has nine floors and along with the Regional Office of the petitioner's-Company some other establishments are also doing business. The name board of to the petitioner-Company was erected to identify its office. It is also further stated that the respondent had issued a notice dated 20-8-2001 which was received on 4-10-2001 with a demand to pay Rs.18,500/- by way ofdemand draft towards payment of arrears and current year advertisement fee. The above demand was made under Section 421 r/w.Section 622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1955, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. It is further stated that the petitioner-Company's name board had been erected to identify its establishment of Regional Office. The petitioner-Company did not project or advertise any of its products or policies and it does not come within the purview of Section 421 of the Act and therefore the notice is illegal. The written permission to put the name board is not required from the respondent because the name board does not attract the provisions of the Act. It is also further stated that under clause (c) of Section 421(1) of the Act, exemption was given to the business of any railway administration. Likewise, the petitioner- Company is also a public sector undertaking and the office is an administrative establishment. Therefore the provisions of Section 421 r/w. Section 622 of the Act will not be attracted and the demand notice issued by the respondent is illegal and unsustainable. In such circumstances, questioning the said action the petitioner approached this Court. Rule Nisi was issued on 18-10-2001, but however no interim order was made.

(3.) In W.P.No.23042/2005 it is stated that the petitioner had been carrying on cloth business and readymade garments in the shop premises by erecting the name boards/board frames to the shop on the parapet wall by paying all necessary taxes etc., to the W.P.Nos.21813, 23042 & 24704 of 2001 authorities concerned. It is further stated that it is common that each and every business establishment anywhere to have name board/board frames erected/displayed at conspicuous place of the establishment in order to facilitate easy and convenient identification of the nature of business and the name of the shop and the establishment by its customers and various authorities and it is for the said purpose the business establishments are using more convenient and improvised methods by way of glow signboards and this practice had been in vogue uninterruptedly for the last many decades. While the matters stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued self-declaration form for exhibiting, displaying advertisements under Form No, 1 in the second week of October 2001 and asked the petitioner to assess the amount to be paid by calculating the space of the name board for the purpose of paying advertisement fee and alleged that the petitioner had erected advertisement boards without obtaining prior permission from the Corporation and without paying advertisement fee as required under Sections 420 and 421 r/w. Section 622 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. It is further stated that the Corporation directed the petitioner to pay the amount by way of demand draft along with the form and further directed that the said demand draft and the application shall be submitted to the advertisement officer within ten days from the date of receipt of the said assessment form. It is further stated that the petitioner and the other shop owners who got similar self assessment forms approached the 2nd respondent- Additional Commissioner (Finance), Advertisement Section of the Corporation and clarified in detail that the name board/board frames securely fixed on parapet wall of the W.P.Nos.21813, 23042 & 24704 of 2001 business premises is neither a sky sign nor an advertisement nor the same contravenes the provisions of Sections 420 and 421 of the Act.The name board/board frames securely fixed is neither a hoarding nor a sky sign and the same is fixed for the purpose of enabling the customers to locate and identify the shop and as such it is not an advertisement as alleged in the assessment Form No.l. It is further stated that in spite of the explanation given by the petitioner and the other shop owners the 2nd respondent is insisting upon to pay. the amounts towards advertisement fee without following the principles of natural justice. The respondents did not issue any notice before demanding the advertisement fee. Hence the action of the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is further stated that the officials of the 2nd respondent cited event of removal and damage of the sign boards on Chikkadpally Main Road in August 2000 whereat they removed the sign boards proclainers and thereby caused huge loss to the properties of the shops and in the said process about 30 shops' name board/board frames had been removed and destroyed beyond any use and the officials warned the petitioner that the petitioner would be subjected to the same treatment. In such circumstances, questioning the said action the petitioner approached this Court. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 7- 11-2001 and granted interim stay.