Haritha Ads V. The Union of India

WP/16910/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Haritha Ads against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Union of India, challenging a public notice that ordered the removal of rooftop hoardings on safety grounds. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents contended that the notice was in line with public safety regulations and the Cantonments Act, 2006. The court examined the procedures followed by the Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found significant procedural improprieties, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioner.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735229 (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 PRAVEEN KUMAR; K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Cantonment Board; Mandamus; Public Safety; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 297; 318; 15'1 CPC

Judgement Text

"a32s21 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16910 OF 2023 Haritha Ads, Rep. By its managing partner P.Kumarsawamy, S/o Mondiah, age 40 yrs, Rl/o Plot No 16, Gokul Nagar, Sainikpuri, Secbad-62. Between: AND 1 2 ...PETITIONER The Union of lndia, 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 Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to lssue a Writ, Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No 2 dated 12lOGl2O23 bearing No. SCB/RSiRooftop Hoardings/2}2311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12lOOl2O23 in SCB RS Roof top. IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited 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 rooi top of the below mentioned premises Serial No. Location of the Hoarding No. of Hoarding Structure Structures 1- Plot No1 , Shanthinagar 1- No. Colony, Risala Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad. IA NO: 2 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 pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated 04.O7.2023 in WP No.16910 of 2023 in respect of the impugned Public Notice dated 12.06.2023. cou nse I fo r th e Peti tio n\"'' rlTht 3.?[tTl5fii3RJ, *,rot counser ror the Respondent No.1 ,,t#BA?[TAX.\".J#HXIt, ,*o,o, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR, SC FOR BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 16910 oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, Iearned counsel for the petitaoner 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, tearned Standing Counsel appearrng on behalf of respondent No.2 - Cantonment Board. 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 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/Lt56 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoa rdi ngs/2023 / 1t56.\" 3 The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner is carrying on business oF outdoor advertising under the name and style of \"Haritha Ads,\" R/o.Plot 2 No. 16, Gokulnagar, Sainikpuri, Secunderabad_ SO0OO6 and eking out his livelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoarding on the roof top of the premises bearing plot No. 1, Shanthinagar Colony, Risala Bazar, Bollarum, Secunderabad, 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 2nd 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 petiuon. P USED HE RE RD. 4. The impugned Public Notice dated L2.O6.2O23 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings,/2O2gltL5,6 issued by the 2\"d respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitaoner, reads as under: \"PUBLIC NOTICE 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 Cantonrhent 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 levied 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 3oth June 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: \"[15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoa rdings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection ol banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts 3 tf_ I 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 / Ba nners 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 tramc. 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. Resolution: The CEO apprased the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues 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 penatty 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 a. '- ---[i^n 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 advertasement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from O1.11.2022.\" 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hatl, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the loth day of May, 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as underr *[13] To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". 5 6 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. 1,08,40,9201-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. 1 Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardangs on rooftop of pravate buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.1 Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri l. 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 al! the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth June, 2O23, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2022 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2O06.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 2O.O4.2O2O 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 .--> 8 advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround leve! and have comnleted ir all he otted term shall he vedimm GHMC. Tho a v ents wh on otn allo m n shall be removed immediatelv after comoletion of the time riod, Further if anv dvertisement element is removed for whatever reason, no shiftinq narllt tsCton clrrll ha rded and t h AIN ch.all tra a automatacallv cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2006 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.\" 9. Counter affidavit filed b the 2nd resDondent. in Dartacular, Paras 7, 9, 10 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, ls factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Public Notice were clearly mentioned and also oave an ooportunaW and breathino time to remove hoardinqs bv virtue of a Public Notice wherebv more than a week's tame has been oranted, and bv virtue of the imouqned PublicNot ce ssued for demolit on of the hoardinos, the Board has no intention to close the business of the Detitioner and he can Verv well restart the business bv re-erectinq the hoardinq structures below 15 feet rom the oround leve after f I e sa obtainino red u isit nction from the Board. t0 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.68 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) vlolation 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 ds, as subsequent to Board's Resolution, the imouone Public Notice has been issued callinc uoon the attention of the owners of buildinos where rooftoo hoardinq structures have been erected so as the Advt. Aoencies and oave sufficient ti e to remove the rooftoD hoardinqs. 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 impugned 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 counse! appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16613 of 2023 and also the lega! pleas raised thereunder. RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: *297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, 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 t2 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 neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in 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, 2OO5, 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 by post, to the person for whom it is intended; or (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if within the 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 effected 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 requisition is to IJ person on whom a notice, order be served is a minor, service uPon or his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" 11. Learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) That the impugned Public Notice is in violation of the principles of natu ral justice, (ii) It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, t4 (iv) That the adopted a notices. Learned counsel respondent - Cantonment Board pick and choose policy and issued had the for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 12. Learned counsel 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 foflowing submissions: (i) The Board has published a public Notice on 72.06.2023 in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicte (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. Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which the advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue (ii) regarding regulating advertisement ( iii) hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect t5 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.68 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. (iv) 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. 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. t6 DISCUS ION AND CONC USION: 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 hoardings, 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: Rs.10,000/- Per Day sl. No. VTOLATION 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 heiqht from ground level Rs.50,000/- Per Day 3 Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Advertisement without permission Rs.50,000/- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding 15olo Frontage of the building Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 5 Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Advertising Devices 6 Operating an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stabilijy Certificate Rs.50,000/- Per Day t7 Rs.10,000/- Per violation 7 on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the Advertisement vehicle Rs. 10,000/- per violation 8 Use of illuminated Advertisements with more then allowed limit brightness for each wall Rs.1,000/- writin Wall Writings 9 oster Rs.2 000 - for each 10 Wall Posters each banner Rs.5,000/- for &Cutout 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs L4. A bare perusal of the G.O'Ms.No.68 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 d level and havecottt D eted thelr all d term shall qrou mov n s whi I n a rti e t! removed immediatelv after comoletion of the time oeriod' G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.04.2O20 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 l8 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 submit fresh 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.68 dated ZO.O4.2O2O on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.0S.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearly states that tho advertrsement elements w ich a lrea tno a d re v exl on he oround o ebuildinos e n t c edino 15 feet x from u V dh m all erm be moved immedi telv bv GHMC. Those advertisement m n en sh removed im ediatel after moletion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue ef the .onooino allotment oeriod, (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). h w I t9 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 affidavit 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. L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Public Notice dated L2.06.2023 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 20 be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Sections 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, takes notice For respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the public notice, dated 12.06.2023, issued by respondent No.2, 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 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.Koteswa r Rao. learned Standino Counsel for resDondent No.2-Board submitted that unless and ntil individual notices are issu d to res ve iseme owners of the advert nt hoardinos, no fu her 2t w ld be ns^t nth k notice, dated 12.06.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on tL .07.2023 for fi ling counter-affidavit. Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further actaon pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.06.2023- However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take otrY, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submission of the learned counsel Sri K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing 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 adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no fufther action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated t2.06.2O23 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. 22 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated LL.OL.2O23 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. \" his C s not maki observati n as rssuance of the said G.O., is concerned i.e G.O.Ms.N .68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O nor it is the subiect issue res n tition. ere ts n to G.O.M .No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O in the Dresent writ Detition. The issue in the Dresent case is clear violation of the stan ard orocedurela d down tn the Sec nderabad Cantonm nt Act oertainino to Sections 287 and 318 and clear violatton ofG.o. Ms. No 68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b). I 21 2fJ. This Court oDtnes tha there ls clear vi lation of principles of natural iustice in the present case. This Court is of the firm ooinion that t eDetitioners ouoht to have been Dut on notice orior to i sulno the Dresent imouoned Memo da d 3O.1O.2O15 bv he 2nd resoondent and orior to oassino the imouoned order dated 3O.10.2O15 bv the 2nd res ondent in al! fairness and admittedlv as borne on record, the Detitaoners have not been heard orior to passino of the orders impuqned and therefore, the orders imouoned are in cle r vio ation of audta Iteram DEftem rule. 21. T Court ooines that the Secun erabad as Board is hor h questions effectino riohts of subiects has duw to act iudicialtv and Resoondent - Cantonment Board cannot decide aoainst the riqhts of the Detitioner without hearano the oetitioner or qivino an oooortuniW to the oetitioner to represent his or her case in the manner known to law. This Court is of the firm OD nion tha the imDuoned notice t is a final order which has been Dassed admittedlv without providino an oooortunitv of hearino to the oetitioner and 24 which even accordino to the Iearned coun I aooearino on behalf of the re ondent i contrarv to the standard sD r aid darrrn rrndar Qaai ion 2o7 t ,l? It af flra 1 n Cantonment Act. 2OO6. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 4O in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para 1O : The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining dasputes 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 rute. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprase 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 25 the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natura! justice. It is after all an approved rute of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time' When the historic document was made at Runnymede in t2L5, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The ctassic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\"' In the cetebrated 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 ats content' Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principtes of natural 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' 26 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 (2O23) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in ..STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RATESH 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. 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 Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of 2't that article. Shortly put, the syllogism 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 L4l therefore, a violation of a principle of natural iustice by a State action is a viotation of Articte 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 iustice, 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 72, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. ln such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter 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 Centra! Government was required to comply with the requirements ol audi alteram partem before at took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1Xa) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D'A' 28 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 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 29 and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.\" 25. In \" ILAL V. E F P 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of naturat 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 natural justice where substantial rights of partaes are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 1O) observed as under: \"7O. Even if a statute is silent and there are no s r m thereunder, there could be nothino wrona in soellino out the need to h e Derties whose riohts and r interest are likelv to be affected bv the orders that mav be oassed- and makina it a reou, ent to follow a fair orocedu re before takino a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles 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 titigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a iudicial or quasi- iudicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve ..>-4 30 requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice itespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. ft 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 naturat justice where substantiat rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessarY intendment. Its aim is to secure iu.'stice or v ntm t a Pri,nci natural ius do not suDD nt the la but SUDD ment it. These rules oDerate onlv in arees not covered bv anv law validl made. Thev are a eans toan end and not an en in thems elves.\" 26. In *CANTONMENT BoARD v. TARAMANI DEVI-, reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarty, in ..DTC v, MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (t) SCC 6OO, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article 14. ll Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rute of audi atteram partem is arbitrary and vaolative of Article 14. This Court opines that administrative proceedings which entail significant civil consequences must be read consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the requirement of Article L4. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section L42(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Coud held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act lead s to serious civil consequences for the assessee, the requirernents of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 28. IN ..KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD V. STATE OF reported in (2O11) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: U.P:\" 32 \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar pradesh Excise Manual which allowed the imposition of a penalty for breach of the conditions of a bond without expressly issuing a show-cause notice. D.K.lain, J. speaking on behalf of the two_Judge Bench held that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) is made. The Court held that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article 14 of the opportunity Constitution unless the requirement of an to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the appticability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (Z) of Rute 633 of the Excise Manual, the principtes of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwathstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, 33 an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary.\" 29. In the present case Procedural Impropriety is evident and borne on record since the standard procedure laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6 had not been adhered to by the 2nd respondent. It is settled law when a statute descrabes or reouires r +lrlna +ri lia ,f^ n nrr.liar n r il alrarrllf ]ra rl tia o in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2O17) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) The Division Bench f Aoex Court in its iudqment dated 04.10.2021 in Supertech Ltd., Vs. Emerald fnrrr* f| rR aaida.r+ l^ra srta n aaaaialiaa A o w n reDorted in 2()2L SCC Online SC 3422, referring to Taylor vs. Taytor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors., 34 reported in AIR 1960 SC 8O1 at para 13 observed as u nder: \"It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This Court too, as adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly taid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it an any other way. 30. Takino into cons rati the afore aid act and de on f s circumstances of the case. and in view of the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the various Judoments as (referred to nd extracted above) and in the lioht of discussion as arrived at as above, the Writ Petition is allowed as oravedf ot.The resoondent No.2 i directed not s to take anv further action oursuant to the amouoned Public Notice vide No scB/RS/Rooftoo Hoardin 2023 osl t 7,156 a 12. 2 2 r ,s ea rl observed t thi order wilt not come in the way of the 2nd respondert - 35 ton ent Boar to k rt e ctio ln accorda nceto law as rthe Drovast nso Cantonment A 2006bv llowinq the standard roc ure Derta intno to notic asDrovided under Sections 297 and 318 of the an m A o H ever he h o er as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-K. AMMAJI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, Union of lndia, For Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Exbcutive Officer, Secunderabad Cartonment, Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. 3. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate. IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUfi/AR, (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA), High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies. BSK KKS 6. one Cc -1o 3Rl k R.. K0rEs+|t,O8,,Jc &r goorJ LopUc] b i HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16910 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS t '^. -, T tlE :-i jh fA- 3 0 ilAH 2024 - C * ) ,i, > o O {: * w @ c\"1iu "