SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(AP) 946

L.NARASIMHA REDDY
Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic – Appellant
Versus
Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
M/s. E. Manohar and S. Ravi, Senior Advocates and M/s. A. Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Anjana Taggarse, C.R. Sridharan, S. Niranjan Reddy, Kakara Venkata Rao, M. Sudheer Kumar, C. Prakash Reddy, N. Prashanth, Nyayapathi Prashant, R.A. Achuthanand, P. Srihari, P. Hari Haran, N. Narsing Rao, Ch. Pushyam Kiran, G. Vidya Sagar, Smt. P. Radhika, Ghanta Rama Rao, Mirza Safiulla Baig, N. Venkateswarlu, N. Aswartha Narayana, M.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, Srinivasa Rao Velivela, Goalla Seshadri, Srinivas Mantha, M. Srinivas, Smt. V. Dyumani, S. Prasad Rao, P. Sri Hari, B. Siva Prasad, P.V. Haragopal, M.V.J.K. Kumar, P. Thirumala Rao, G. Anandam, Goverdhan Venu, T. Sharath, LV. Ramesh and B. Vijaysen Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Smt. Kalpana Ekbote and Mr. R. Ramachandra Reddy, SC for MCH, M/s. G. Vijay Kumar, M. Durga Nageswara Rao and Y. Madhusudhan, Counsel for the Respondents.

ORDER

In this batch of writ petitions, notices issued under Section 421 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act (for short the Act), on behalf of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short the Corporation), demanding advertisement fees for the boards displayed by the petitioners are challenged. According to the petitioners, the notices are illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

2. The petitioners are either business establishments, or professionals, undertaking various activities in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad. They have erected boards, indicating the name of their establishments or depicting the activities undertaken by them. While in some cases, the boards are ordinary in nature without any technical features, in other cases, they are said to be illuminated.

3. The Corporation invited tenders for assigning the contract of collecting advertisement fee. M/s. U.S.M. Agency (for short the Agency) is said to have quoted about Rs.10 crores for the five zones of the Corporation put together and emerged as the highest tenderer. A contract was entered into and on the basis of the same, the said Agency served notices o


















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top