Haritha Rosalind Koppulu V. The Union of India

WP/16854/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Haritha Rosalind Koppulu against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Union of India, challenging a public notice dated 12.06.2023 that ordered the removal of rooftop hoardings for public safety. The petitioner argued that the notice was illegal and did not follow due process. The court examined the procedures followed by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found discrepancies in adherence to the statutory requirements, leading to the decision to set aside the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771284 (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 KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Public Safety; Removal Order; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMEER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P TION NO: 16854 oF 2023 l32s2l No. of Hoarding Structures__ 1No. 1No Between: AND 1 2 Haritha Rosalind Koppulu, S/o. Vijay Age 59 Yrs Ryo. Plot No 161, Employees Colony, Yapral, Ranga Reddy, Telangana - 500087 ...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- s00003. ..RESPONOENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Cbnstitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue 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 Hoardings/2o2311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice daled 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top. lA NO: 'f OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that rn the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour[ may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioner on the robf top of the Below mentioned premises Serial No Location of the Hoa rorng I Structure 1- Pno 2113, Krishna Reddy Nagar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad 2 P no 2-6-191, Sikh Village. Near [/astana Hotel, Secunderabad 3 Pno 2.Opp Risala Bazar, Bus Stop, Bollarum, Secunderabad 1No 4 H.No KR Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad new 1No Ground Floor-1, sadan Appartment, Sai Colony, Alwal-10 Sai Om Back to Back E lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: The Chref Executive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 Haritha Rosalind Koppulu, S/o. Vijay, Aged 59 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No 16'1 , Employees Colony, Yapral, Ranga Reddy. ...RESPONDENT No.1M/RlT PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence New Delhi. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 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 vacate the lnterim Order daled 03.07.2023 in WP No.16854 ol 2023 in respect of the impugned Public Notice daled 12.06.2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition, in the interesl of lustice under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKAR REDDY REPRESENTING FOR SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SoLICITOR GENERAL oF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER 2 ORDER: Hea rd a ppea ri ng THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No L I 5 40F o23 Mr.sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr'Gadi Praveen Kumar, tearned 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 datecl 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/1t56 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated t2.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023/ 1 156 . \" 3 The case of the Peti t one r n brief : The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style of \"Vaibhav Ads, R/o Plot =-r--_ 2 No.161, Employees Colony, yapral, Ranga Reddy Telangana_ 500087 and eking out his livelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoardings on the roof top of premises i.e., 1) p.No.2I/3, Krishna Reddy Nagar, New Bowenpalty, Secunderabad, 2) p.No.2_6_191, Sikh Village, Near Mastana Hotel, Secunderabad, 3) p.No. 2, Opp Risala Bazar, Bus Stop Bollarum, Secunderabad, 4) H.No. KR Nagar, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad and 5) Ground Floor_ 1, Sai Sadan Appartment, Om Sai Colony, Alwal_10, by maintaining all safety standards, by paying a|l 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 hoardrngs along with it structures be removed immediately rn vlew of public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. 4. The PERUS DTHERECORD. bearing impugned public Notice dated L2.O6.2:OZ3 No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O2g/LLS6 3 issued by the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, 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 root 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 compty 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 )une 2023, failing which action wiil be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequenfly will be ltabte 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, 4 2022atl5OOhours,inparticular,therelevantparas'read as under: \"[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 publrc 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 I Banners ii) Reductron 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 hoardlngs shall be made of environmental friendly material' No banners/cut out hoardlngs shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meet'ng and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges' In 5 this regard, the mentioned on the a uthorized places agenda side and sN,l have been 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 c,etailed 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 addressed. two reasons and now both have been 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 una uthorized advertisement etements. 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 Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, 6 !ri Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the loth day of May' 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"[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\". 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 ratns' 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 Ievel' The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardinqs on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40 ,920/'. 7 Therefore, keepang 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. Resolution: regulating The CEO apprised the advslllsqrnsnt hoardings Board about on rooftop of pravate buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there wi!! 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. Shrt J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rqoflep 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 lire is more important than the revenue being gengr6ted, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resotved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed an view of public safety on or before 3oth June, 2023, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per B 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'O4'2O20 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 exceedinq 15 feet from oround level and have comoleted their allo ed term shall be mo imm el HM e vert m n ele ents which have an on otno llotm nt oeriod h rem d m ra a r m ti n he me iod. Fur ril n dve n h el en r m v dt r wha ver on n shi rmt ns ll be or dan he AIN il uto tica ll anc 1led.\" 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 carrted on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minrmise any inlurious' offensive or dangerous effects arising or Iikely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of thc erection of any enclosure' fence' tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever 9 material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.,, 9 o n ra da a ar s 9 n 10 11 r ds s v t e nd e d t r \"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 pa yment of license fee of hoardings will not create any right to the petitioner to prevent the Board from issuin g the impugned public Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I further hum bly su bmit 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 atso qave an o ortu it and re thin ti tor em o da s 10 b vlr ee h k's ti e a edP bl n a t Pu o h re ore h n n b virt r m I ition of th nt n to cl set e d hec nve heh ar o t e ro v an tr m the B ar be u r e t eBo t r b s o h ct re b lo ini r w ll e r t Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged' 10. I further humbly submit that' the impuqned Public Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure ontwocounts-oneistoprotectsafetyandSecurityofthe public, the other one ls 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 GH[4C' 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 rs maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution aqainst any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz ' (i) violation of principies of natural justice, (ii) wrthout 'JUrisdiction and (iii) 11 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 su seo uent to Boar s R o ti h rm dP bti No ce as s e c lin n e tte on o er of it e r ft h uc e AV s he Ad A ct a VE t t re V th oo rn 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 detaited 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.6B dated 20.04.2020 of GHMC and accordingly the impugned pu blic 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 facre case to interfere with the i mpugned public Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent and th e Writ petition is devoid of any merits.,, 10, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the repry affidavit an w.p.No.16613 0f 2023 and also the lega I pleas raised thereunder. t2 EL VA T ROV Section 297 ot the Cantonment Act' 2O06' reads as under: \"2g7. 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 rUinoUsstateor,forwantofsufflcientrepairs,protectionor enclosure,anUisanceordangeroustopersonspassingby or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood' the Chief ExecutiveOfficer,bynoticeinwritingmay'requirethe owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner there sf , 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 danqer is' in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer' imminent' he shall forthwith take such Steps as he thinks necessarv to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonrnent Act' 2OO6' 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- @) by giving or tendering the notice' order or requisition' or sending it intended; or by Post, to the Person for whom it is 13 (b) if such person cannot be tound, 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 la nd, 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 occuprer, 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, tessee 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 tand to which it relates. (3) When the req u isition is to person 0n whom a notice, be served is a mrnor, service order upon or his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be servtce upon the minor.,, l4 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainty puts forth the following submissions: (i) That the impugned Public Notice is in violation of the principles of natural j ustice, It is without j u risd iction, It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notlces. (ii) ( iii) Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions puts forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as PraYed for' L2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2\"d Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit and puts forth the following submissions: (i) t he Board has published a Public Notrce on 12.06.2023 in Shakshl (Telugu)' Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers' whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertigement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners t0 ensure that the structures are removed by (iv) 15 issued to the petitioner to remove the keeping in view oF the safety oF the pubtic 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 regarding regulating advertisement 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 poticy 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 annumf since human life is more tmportant that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that alt 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 wds ( ii) ( iii) (iv) The Cantonment Board is hoarding structures under removed the the provisions hoardings, rooFtop oF the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in tssuing the impugned notice on two grounds _ One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other 16 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 the ludgment dated on i.Ot.2023 Passed in w.P.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and . contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed' DI U SI NAND cON CL sION: o 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 29rl' daY of clearly ind icates two issues pena ltY on u na u thorized September, 2022 at 1500 hours - Firstly - to consider imposition of advertisement hoa rdings' which however, is not the sublect issue SecondlY - the ProPosal that in the Present writ Petition' and 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 material and no banners/cut out environmental frien d lY hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees' The penalties to be imposed are as follows: 77 Pena Ity amount (in Rs.) Rs.1,00,000/- per Day Use of flash hg lig hrs/No n sta tic illumination in Rs.50,000/- per Day Advertisement without erm ission 4 Size of the Advertise me ntlNa m e board exceeding Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. per Day 15olo FrontaI e of the buildin'I Movrng, rotating or variable message Rs.10,000/- per Day Advertisin Devices Operating a n Advertisement element without valid Structural Sta b ilit Certificate 5 Use of 7 Advertisement advertisement board, stru ctu vehicle on moving veh is placed in a manne re or projection on icle where the r of any additional the body oF the Rs.10,000/- per viotation Rs.50,000/- per Day sl. No. 1 ele ment VIOLATION ht fro m above 15 feet in hei Advertisement round level Erection of Unauthorized 2 element Erection of Unauthorized below 15 feet in hei ht from AdvertisemenC round level Rs.50,000/- per Day 3 6 8 Use of iil more the n uminated allowed I Advertisements imit with brightness Rs.10,000/- per violation 9 Wall Writings 10 ll Posters 11 Unauth orized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.1,000/- for each wall writin Rs 000/- for each poster z Rs.5,000/- for each banner &Cutout 14. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.6g dated 20.04.2020 clause 2. b) clearly indica tes that all the advertisement etements 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 r un el n ha ec th all e ter sh il t er m m ta Th e ve rse ent el ments hi h V a on a lo n eri s ll emov d immedi tel er ti of e e ert 1B 5N'i G.o.Ms.No.68dated20.04.2020whichpertainStotheGuidelines 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 behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment 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 3nl 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 20'O4'2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated r0 05 2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.o.Ms.No.68 dated 20.o4.2020, 2.b) which clearly States that ver men el me n wh ch ar lr os a Counsel a PPea ring on Board that the Board t oun on he bu n s x tn 1 f e from 19 5N,J f n el n h v lr I er all s b oved b GH o a e t e s hi h ave ov m e ta n d c n er d of e m e al e m This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue oF the ,onooinq ailotment 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 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 2g7 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 12.06.2023 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 vlew of the public safety Therefore' the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June' 7023 ' 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 aod 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 notice, dated L2.06 2023, issued by respondent requiring the advertisement agencies having advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on-or before 30 06 2023 and further it is pu blic No.2, their of the 27 sr!,1 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 Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.06.2023. ln the circumstances. post the matter on ll .07.2023 for filin g counter-aff idavit. 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 dny, appropriate action, in accordance with Iaw, 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 Further 22 action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 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 as record. 19. It is true that thas Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.No.3632B of ZO2Z 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 restrictron 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.,, Co ts tm tn an o serv tion tn o far Th rs n of h id G.O rs onc r d G. .Ms. o.68 ated 20.o4.202Onorit ts the su b ect rssue I th nt iti tn he rsn lt n o G M d e 4.202 an the s n writ 23 n e s T t scl rv ta a a dur wn in e cu ra c t n A tai e 7 d ea v 2.b). o o N 68 e o 2 o.T s tn h cl vt a r c o r s ln f n hi ou on h he ti ers v n u o ta rtor ors tn e u t 1 o1 e 2\"d e n nt d f s n t e rde r ate 3 2 5 th nd n e an edl a n c t e r en b n r r n t d m ne nd f e e r er !nc arv ol ton au al ru le. o sth th cu r s o A t it d er e e se tn rt h of ub e h a ci a ent ant nm tB rd n h t a h rt he titi n r it ut rtn 24 t itio er r tn an o unl th e iti ner to ner kn wn w r e hi or e ma o he fir th lm u ned not ce T c fi al rd wh h a as ed d ith u n f tn to th itio er n rovl tn an nsel a a tn n w ve c r n t rar th nd r s ha t re n n do n e e 7 n 31 of th o f u an n en A 22. The Apex Court in the iudgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 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 justice 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 civit consequences is in issue' These principles are well settled' The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi atterafi, partem rule' It says that no one should be corrdemned unheard' Notice ls the best limb of this principle' It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party SN,J determinativety of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enabte him to make his representation. fn the absence of a notice of the kind and such 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. It 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 :-2,.', the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta,,. The classic exposition of Sir reasonable opportunity, becomes wholly vitiated. the order passed Thus, it is but iustice requires to adjudicate',. In the Edward \"vacate, Coke of natural interrogate and celebratecl case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adarn before he was called upon to make his defence. ,Adam, (says God), ,where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof f commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?,, Since then the principle has been chiselted, 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 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' 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. RA]ESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,, At PATA 85 observed as under : ..B5.FairnessinactionrequiresthatprocedUresWhich permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just' fair, and reasonable' The principles of natural justice have a unlversal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article l4 The rule of audi atteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14' A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tutsiram Patel I'as categorrcally 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 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 discrirnination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Articte 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justrce. What it does is to guarantee that any taw or State action violating them wiil be struck down. The principles of naturat justice, however, appty 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. ln such a case, the principles of natural justice require that tt must decide such rnatter fairly and impartiaily.,, 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex court reported in (1981) ..SWADESHI COTTON 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in lvtILLS v. UNION OF INDIA,,, the .-.' 2A 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. short, the general principle - as drstinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be thatwhereaStatutedoesnot,interms,excludethisrule 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 srlent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrativedecisiontakenbytheauthorityinvolvescivil 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 hearinq shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically' it would paralyse the admrnistrative 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 maxirnum 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 \"M N I L P e o tn o4 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principres of naturar justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. fn other words, a statutory silence shoutd be taken to impty the need to observe the princapres of naturar justice where substantiar rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.4i3_54, para tO) observed as under: \"70. Ev if si an the are n os, ve re de h , the ules made ,n ron , s elli ut e d wh n h and ln re e rs th a be , are trem n to I ow d , s taki, a ctston nl sth s te r e, The principles 30 of naturat iustice fiust 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 iudicial or quasi' judicial character, to adoPt modatities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties' Procedure is mainty grounded on the principles of natural iustice irrespective of the extent of its apptication by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has alwaYs principle. Where the statute is necessary intendme nt. Its ,m rev nt , rrt of ti' P observance of the principles of natural iustice' such statutorY silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural iustice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected' The application of naturat iustice becomes presumptive' unless Sounx sxcluded by express words of statute or to sti been a silent c cherished about the r ot I, I e t w atural ti e n 5 plement it. fhese rules oDerate onlv na s ot a law v t m a e s c vere oan n n o an dinth se s.\" n 31 26. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI oEVr-, reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two_Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule ol audi alteram partem as a part of Article 14. Simitarly, in ..DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS- reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 6OO, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equatity clause in Article L4. Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and viotative of Article 14. This Court opines that administrative proceedings which entail significant civil conseqUences must be read consistent with the prrnciple of naturar Justice to meet the requirement of Articre 14. 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 t42(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2_A) of the 32 s\". j Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee/ the requirements of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 28. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U'P'\", reported tn (2011) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual which 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-ludge 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 Constitution unless the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is read into it' The Court observed: (SCC P. 743, Paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the assue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the applicability 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 (7) of Rule 533 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an of Rule a llowed 33 opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding 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, 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 procedurat Impropriety is evident and borne on record since the standard procedure laid down under Section 2gZ and 31g of the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been 666srgd to by the 2nd respondent, I ts ttle law w en tu rl re es thi t e n a icu I r ann o d n in that manner or Jl ot at il. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd A2e. B) he tv to B its u h ud men d d 1 o21 nS rte V er e ou o ner Re den Welf Asso on Or 54 reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3422, referr'ng to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs' King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R'63 Ind Ap372 and Transport Co-operative Society Ltd', Transport AuthoritY, Aurangabad in AIR 1960 SC 801 at para 13 observed as Parbhani Regional reported under: \"It is that certain thing in where a power as a certain waY, the given thing Vs. The & Ors., todoa 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 laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other waY. o kin to n sider tion he res t t ft cas and nvt wof e ircu nce ourt in t varl sJ me s wn he ex rred an extr e ab an int eli ussr asa ri ved s b the Writ ita 35 sfl,l w.P,]to.16854 2021 w d r fo Th re n nt o.2 ec t t e u er ua h n P ti N tice vide No.S BIRS/Rooft o H rdi cts I 2023/ 1 56 dated1 .6.2023 However, atis clea rlv observed ha hi o er ill no co th w nd resDondent ca ntonme t Board tot ake nv ADD Dra te cti a ord nc to aw as er h Canto men Act. 2006b t v follo th and tno st rd o u r tn n rce s vt n 297 and 3 18 the Ca f ntonment A o6. 2 However, there hall be oorder sto costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. t To, D/. V. HARI P AD ASSISTANT /iTRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, The Union of lndia, For Defence New Delhi. 2. The Chief Executive Officer. The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Courl Compound, Secunderabad-500003. 3. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA) [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies BN GJP W HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212023 t I 1HE Srh 16 / li l. ( { lfr fr/ll W4 c- z o o ,+ ,+ * ,:-F,a: Crrr.F;O ORDER WP.No.16854 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS f oq*& W l 5 Dl "