##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

WRIT PETITION No.9722 of 2013

DATE: 31.03.2026

Between:

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited …Petitioner

AND

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development, AP Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500022 and Others

…Respondents

ORDER:

Heard Sri Ms.A.Nithya Reddy, learned counsel representing

Sri G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel on record for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

contends that the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the impugned communication in Lr.No.1889/Advt/GHMC/2013, dated 06.03.2013, issued by respondent No.4 i.e., the Additional Commissioner (Advertisement Section), Greater Hyderabad Municipal

2

Corporation, is non-est, void ab initio, and runs contrary to the provisions of Section 421(3) of the GHMC Act, and as such inoperative against the petitioner herein and to declare that all the actions of the respondents herein, jointly and severally, as also their staff, employees, agents, or any person claiming through them, in any manner damaging, removing, or defacing the signboards of various shops, traders, retailers, distributors, and dealers of the petitioner, wherein the pictures of “Coca- Cola”, “Fanta”, “Sprite”, “Thums Up”, “Limca”, “Maaza”, “Kinley” etc., appear, within the territorial limits of the GHMC, are illegal. It is also contended that the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the purported “advertisement fee” from the petitioner

is illegal, invalid and unauthorized in law.

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that a similar issue has been considered by this Court in Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic, Hyderabad & Others vs. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and Another, 2010 (2) ALD 856 and Rama Devi Multi Specialty Dental Clinic, Hyderabad and others v. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another in W.P.No.23354 of 2009 and batch, wherein this Court

3

held that the said advertisement fee levied by the Corporation is in the nature of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and could not have been levied without specific authority and in

accordance with the prescribed procedure.

4. In that view of the above, the present case is squarely

covered by the judgment of this Court referred supra. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed with the following

observations:

a) the advertisement fee levied by the Corporation is in the form of a tax referable to Section 197 of the Act and it could not have been levied without specific authority and in

accordance with the prescribed procedure;

b) the notices impugned in the writ petitions do not accord with Sections 169, 633 and other relevant provisions of

the Act, and they are accordingly set aside; and

c) the Corporation is entitled to insist on the permissions being obtained for erection and display of advertisements, subject, however, to the exceptions covered by the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 421 of the Act; and to stipulate fee therefor, commensurate with the service of regulatory activity, and in its discretion to levy tax, under section

197(f), duly following the prescribed procedure.

4

5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed, directing the

respondents to follow the above judgment scrupulously. There

shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J

Date: 31.03.2026

ADT