A.Ramesh V. The Union of India

WP/16900/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by A. Ramesh, an outdoor advertising businessman, challenging a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) that ordered the removal of rooftop hoardings for public safety reasons. The notice, dated 12.06.2023, required the removal of all rooftop hoardings by 30.06.2023, citing safety concerns during heavy rains and structural stability issues. Ramesh argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The SCB defended the notice, citing public safety and adherence to a government order (G.O.Ms.No.68) that regulated such structures. The court's decision highlighted procedural improprieties in the issuance of the notice, leading to its invalidation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686279 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; K R KOTESWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Public Safety; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition; Removal Order
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"l32s2l HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16900 OF 2023 Between: A.Ramesh, S/o A.Balaram, Age 60 years, Rl/o.Flat No.305, S.V.Gayatri Nilayam, Kothapet, tlyderabad. .....PETITIONER AND 1 2 The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence New Delhi The Secunderabad Cantonment, Board, Represented by its The Chief Executive Officer Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad- 500003. ....,RESPONDENTS Petition Under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to rssue a Writ ,Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoa rdings/202311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operatron of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioners on the roof top of the below mentioned premises Serial No Location of the Hoarding Structure Size No. of Hoardrng Structures 2 Bowenpally X Roads (Above Jithesh shop) H.No.'13, Kadakpura Bowenpally Roads (Above Jithesh shoP) H.no.13 Kadakpura 50'x10' 1No 30'x'15 1No l.A.No.2 of 2023 Between The chief Executive officer, Secunderabad cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. .....PETlTlONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 A Ramesh, S/o A.Balaram, Age 60 years' R/o Flat No 305 S'V'Gayatri Nilayam, Kothapet, HYderabad. .....RESPONDENT No.lMRIT PETITIONER 2 The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence New Delhi' (R - 2 is not necessary party to this petition) ....RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Petition under section 151 c.P.c praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased [o vacate the lnterim Order dated O3-O7'2O23 in WP.No 16900 of 2023 rn respect of the impugned Public Notice daled 12-O6-2023 and dismissed the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI SUDHARKAR REDDY' ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHETLURU SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (OEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.R.KOTESWAR RAO The Court made the following ORDER 1 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P TION No. 16900 oF 2rJ23 ORDER: Heard Mr.sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 - Cantonment Boa rd. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: 'To issue a Writ Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the Paper Publication notice dated t2.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/L156 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardi ngs/20 23 / I L56.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style of \"Ramesh Arts,\" R/o Flat 2 No. 305, S.V. Gayatri Nilayam, Kothapet, Hyderabad and eking out his livelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoardings on the roof top of the premises i.e. 1) Bowenpally X Roads (Above Jithesh Sweet Shop), H.No. 13, Kadakpura and 2) Bowenpalty X Roads (Above lithesh Sweet Shop), H.No. 13, Kadakpura, by maintaining all safety standards, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes without any default. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 2ud respondent Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News paper dated 12.06.2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed immediately in view of public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. PERU ED THE RECORD. 4. The impugned Public Notace dated L2.O6.2O23 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O23/LtS6 issued by the 2\"d respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, reads as under: \"PUBLIC NOTICE J The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety. Therefore, the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the roof top of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30.06.2023, Agencies and Owners of the building failing to comply with notice will be ievied with penalty as decided by the board and action will be initiated as per cantonments Act 2006. The owner of building will be personally liable for any damages caused or of liFe. The owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to noted that it is responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30th lune 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.\" 5. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: l \"[15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings. flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of PenaltY charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traFfic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. Resol utio n: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two assues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. In this regard, the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. ) Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise For the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The PCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting, the matter was pended for two reasons and now both have been addressed. After the detailed discussion, the Board resolved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same trom OL.IL.2O22.\" 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the loth day of May, 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: 6 \"[13] fo consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the resid e nts\" . As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt.15.10.2014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavy rains. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.04.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08.40,92O/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on 7 remova! of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table' Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public' By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.l Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural safety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural safety' PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth June, 2023, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resotution vide CBR No. 15, dt'29'O9'2O22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006\"' 8 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.202O clause 2.b) reads as under: \"b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround level and have comoleted their allotted term shall be removedimmediatelv by GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an onootno allotment oeriod shall be removed immed iatelv after comoletion of lm rl Further if an advertisemen element is removed for whatever reason. no shiftinq ermission shall be accorded d e IN h automaticall v cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 20O6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"(17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom ; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enclosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereoF.\" all ]ra 9 9. Counter affidavit filed bv the 2nd respondent, in oarticular, Paras 7, 9, LO and 11, reads as under: \"7. I further humbly submit that, regarding collection of hoarding charges/fee from time to time from the Petitioner, the Board is empowered to collect such license fee as per Section 67 of the Act 2006, as stated above. However, for the reasons explained in the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 68 of GHMC, the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioner and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioner is intended to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from the ground level and the same will be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted. Therefore, for mere payment of license fee of hoardings will not create any right to the Petitioner to prevent the Board from issuing the impugned Public Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I further humbly submit that. the contention of the petitioner is that, the Public Notice issued to remove the hoardings without following due process of law, is factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance oF the impugned Public Notice were clearly mentioned and also qave an oDDortunitv and breathin q time to remove hoardinos bv virtue of a Public Notice wherebv more than a week's time has been qranted, and bv virtue of the imouqned Public Notice issued for demolition of the t0 hoardinos, the Board has no intention to close the business of the petition r and he can verv well restart the business bv re-erectinq the hoardinq strUctures below 15 feet from the dround leve after obtaininq reouisite sanction from the Board. Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged. 10. I further humbly submit that, the impugned Public Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structures on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings; and as a policy decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re-erect their hoardings below 15 feet from ground level, as is permissible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.6B of GHMC, as detailed supra. In view of the same, the Writ Petitioner is required to remove the rooftop hoarding structures from his property. 11. I further humbly submit that, a Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner is not falling in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged as, as subsequent to Board's olution the im u n dPu ti N ssued callin u n h n I buildinos where rooftoo hoardinq structures have heen erected so as the Advt. Aoenctesa nd oaVe sufficient time to remove the rooftop hoardinos. Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, had issued the impugned Public Notice having jurisdiction to issue such Notice as per the provisions of the Act, as detailed supra. Lastly, the Board has not violated any statutory procedure and ordering to remove rooftop hoardings is followed by the Board Resolution which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 of GHMC and accordingly the irnpugned Public Notice has been issued to remove rooftop hoardings to safeguard safety and security of the public and also to prevent shabby look of the Cantonment. In view of the above stated grounds, the Petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned Public Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits.\" 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16613 of 2O23 and also the !ega! pleas raised thereunder. RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: n :l \"297. power to require buildings, wells, etc., to rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, be or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the Executive Officer, by notice in neighbourhood, the Chief writing may, require the owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any oF them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if the danger is, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, imminent, he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 20O6, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc._ ( 1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented_ (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it intended; or (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known ptace of abode or business, if within the by post, to the person For whom it is l3 cantonment, or by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to some adult member or servant or his family, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the buildings or land, if any, to which it relates. (2) When any such notice, order or requisition is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, lessee or occupier therein, and the service thereof shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be etfected either- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the owner, lessee or occupier, or, if there are more owners, lessees, or occupiers than one to any one of them; or (b) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be found, by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to the authorised agent, if any, of any such owner, lessee or occupier, or to an adult member or servant of the family of any such owner, lessee, occupier, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part oF the building or land to which it relates. (3) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon afl adult member or servant of his farnily shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: 14 (i) That the impugned Public Notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice, (ii) It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. L2. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board has published a Public Notice on L2.06.2O23 in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which action would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. (ii) Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the l5 ( iii) ( iv) buildings on which the advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue regarding regulating adveftisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect of the safety and security of the residence was discussed at length in the Board Meeting held on 10.05.2023 and in the said Board Meeting by taking into consideration of the New Advertisement policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No.6g dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds - One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision. l6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. DISC SSION AN D CONCLU ION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firstly - to consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardinQs, which however, is not the subject issue in the present writ petition, and Secondly - the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4' x 6' and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic' Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees' The penalties to be imposed are as follows: l7 VIOLATION t4. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround level and have completed their allotted term shall sl. No. Penalty amount (in Rs.) 1 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element above 15 feet in height from ground level Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day 2 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element below 15 feet in height from ground level Rs.50.000/- Per Day 3 Use of flashing lights/Non statlc illumination in Advertisement without perm ission Rs.50,O0O/- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding 157o Frontaqe of the buildinq Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 5 Use of Moving, rotating Advertising Devices or variable message Operating an Advertisement Structural Stability Certificate element without valid Rs.10,000/- Per Day 6 Rs.50,000/- Per Day 7 Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness more then allowed limit Rs.10,000/- per violation I Rs.10,000/- per violation 9 Wall Posters Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writinq 10 Rs.2,000/- for each poster 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner &Cutout be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement elements which havea non otn allotm eriod o o ent n shall he removed immediatelv after comDletion of the time Deriod. l8 G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. 15. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioners intend to su bmit f resh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from the ground level and the same would be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted is untenable in view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2O20, 2.b) which clearly states that those advertisement elements which are alreadv existino on the qrou n on the buildinqs exceedi 15 feet from t9 qround level and have comnleted their allotted terms shall be removed immediatelv bv GHMC, Those advertisement elements which have an onooino allotment eriod shall be removed imm diatelv after comDletion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoinq allotment period' (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). 16. A bare perusal of Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonment Board pertaining to'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. Because even in the counter affldavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act. 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. 20 L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Public Notice dated t2.06.:2023 clearly indicates that it is a final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety' Therefore' the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June' 2023' failing which action will be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Section s 297 and 318 of the Cantonments Act has not been followed ' It is also In fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W'P'No'16337 of 2023 as under: \"Notice before admission' Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No 1' Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment, No.2. takes notice for resPondent This Writ Petition is filed challenging the public notice,datedt2'06'2023'issuedbyrespondentNo2' requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30'06'2023 and further it is 2l also indicated that if the same is not done before the said date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act, 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is filed. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standin oCo nsel for resoond nt No.2-Board submitted that unless and until individ ual notices a re lssu d to resD ctive owners of the advertisement hoa rd i nqs. no fu her acti n would be take solelv bastnq uDon the oublic notice, dated L2.O6.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on 7l 'O7 '2023 for filing cou nter-affidavit. Pending further orders, respondent No'2 is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.O6.2023. However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take otrY, appropriate action, in accordance with taw, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submission of the learned counsel Sri K'R'Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearinq for the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board, recorded in the order dated 27 '06'2023 passed in W.P.No.16337 of 2023 clearly indicates that the assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adheredtoandthatunlessanduntilindividualnoticesareissued 22 to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further actionwouldbetakensolelybasingUponthepUblicnoticedated 12.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on record. 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public good, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposing the restrictions. \" Thi Cou rt is not makinq anv observatio srnso r issua nc of the said G.O., is concerned t.e.. as G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2020 nor it is the subiect rssue tition. Sinee- in the present writ o there is no challenqe 23 to G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O in the present writ petition. The issue in the oresent case is clear violation of the standard procedure laid down in the Secunderabad Cantonment Act pertaininq to Sections 287 and 318 and clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4.202O clause 2.b). 20. This Court opines that there is clear violation of principles of natural iustice in the present case. This Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners ouqht to have been out on notice orior to issuinq the oresent imouqned Memo dated 30.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd respondent and Drior to oassinq the imouqned order dated 30.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd respondent in all fairness and admittedly as borne on record, the oetitioners have not been heard prior to passinq of the orders impuqned and therefore, the orders impuqned are in clear violation ol audi alteram Dartem rule. 2t. This Court ooines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board is an uthoritv to determine the n effecti n b ects ha to il and Re rt h nt of ntonm u canno n 24 cid ainst th rt of h IO rwt ut n he etiti ner r tv an nt th eti ert int emanner nown to la re resent his or herca This ur of he fi o n th u dn rce fin lor rwh hh bee ad dl witho DDortunitv of hearinq to the oetitioner and orovidinqano wh hev n accordin oth r co el a arrn on f the res nde is ntr to h s ar b half u nder Section 297 and 318of the Drocedure laid down Ca onm ntA 200 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2009) 12 SCC 4O in Umanath Pandey & Others vs' State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under: Para 10: The adherence to principles of natural iustice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue' These principles are well settled' The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard' Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise i] 25 and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. ft is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in L2L5, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way anto the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?\" Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and 26 luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principles of natura! justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice\". 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,' at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. 27 The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Afticle 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the sylloglsm runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article l4'. therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 74, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such rnatter fairly and impartially.\" 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in 'SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA\", the issue was whether the Central Government was required to compty with the requirements ol audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S' Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under: \"44. In short, the general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely. iF the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need 29 for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands,. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.', 25. In \" NGILAL V. ATE F M.P re edi 20 4 2 SCC page 441, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court heid that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of naturat justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453_54, para 10) observed as under: \"70. Even if a statu ,ssilent and th re are no oositiv'e words in the Act or the ules de thereunder, there could be nothino rono tn sDellino out the need to hear the Darties whose riohts and tn ta likel to a ted the e at a ass a m ,n a ut t follow a fair p ed,ure before takino a decis on, unless the statute orovides otherwise. The principles l0 of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessarY to achieve requirements of natural iustice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where suhstantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive' unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. fts aim is to secure iustice or to Drevent miscarriaoe of iustice. rincioles of natural iust,ice do not suoolant t e law. but