By the Court.—Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.M. Shukla, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This petition has been filed praying for quashing of the advertisement fee as well as the charges for removal of advertisements under the impugned orders dated 17th January, 2012 and 31st January, 2012 passed by the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation on the ground, that the petitioner who was a candidate of the Assembly Elections of the State of Uttar Pradesh, 2012 fielded by the Bharatiya Janta Party, had set up hoardings and kiosks for advertisements without the permission of the Municipal Corporation in spite of a public notice having been issued in this regard and notified in the newspapers. The petitioner has also been called upon to deposit the amount therein on the ground that the Municipal Corporation had to incur an expenditure for removal of the said advertisements and therefore the petitioner was liable to make good the aforesaid demand raised through the impugned order keeping in view the directives issued by the Election Commission, the powers exercisable by the Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad under the U.P. Municipal Corporation Act 1959 and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Upon a challenge having been raised in this petition, a Division Bench of this Court on 23rd February, 2012 passed the following interim order :

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N.N. Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondnets.

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 7.1.2012 and 31.1.2012 issued by the resplendent No. 3 by which the petitioner has been asked to deposit Rs. 2,58,000/- and 36,400/- respectively as fee for putting the hoardings and expenses for removal of such hoardings incurred by the Nagar Nigam.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by virtue of Section 192 and 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act 1959, the respondents cannot charge any tax or fee on the advertisement with regard to the election of Legislative Assembly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the hoardings admittedly have been put in connection with the assembly election in the District Ghaziabad.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is liable to make the payment under Section 193 of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959 for removal of unauthorised hoardings and the Nagar Nigam is entitled to realise the expenses.

We are of the prima facie view that the Nagar Nigam is not entitled to realise any tax or fee but only the expenses. However, the advertisement/hoardings are required to be put after approval of the competent authority and hoardings having been put without the approval of the competent authorty, it is open for the Nagar Nigam to realise the amount which was incurred in removing the hoardings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that realisation of expenses is not also permissible under the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. According to the petitioner under order dated 17.1.2012 the total amount which is said to be incurred for the expenses in removing the hoardings is Rs. 56700/- and with regard to the order dated 31.1.2012 the total amount is for expenses Rs. 7000/-.

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that subject to deposit of Rs. 56700/- and Rs. 7000/- respectively within two weeks from today, no further recovery shall be made from the petitioner.

Respondents are allowed three weeks’ time to file counter-affidavit.

List in the week commencing 19.3.2012.”

4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad justifying its action on the grounds referred to hereinabove while referring to the provisions of Section 193 and Section 196 of the 1959 Act.

5. It has been further stated in the counter-affidavit that the Municipal Corporation has charged only the expenses for removal and has not imposed any advertisemen