Ikar Outdoor Advertising, V. The Union of India,

WP/16722/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Ikar Outdoor Advertising 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 proper legal procedures and violated principles of natural justice. The court examined the procedures followed by the Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found them deficient, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686269 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS, SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA, CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI, DTC v MAZDOOR CONGRESS, ISAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT, KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.P.
• 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
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original J u risdiction) IUONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16722 OF 2023 132521 ...PETITIONER Between: AND I 2 lkar Outdoor Adve(ising, Rep By it Managing Partner Mohd Rasool, S/o Late Mohd lbrahim, age. 59 Yrs, P.No.16, Rd No.13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad- 034. 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 issue a Writ, Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No.2 dated 12.06.2023 bearlng No. SCBiRS/Rooftop Hoard ings/202311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioner on the roof top of the petition mentioned premises. 7 5erial No Location of the Hoarding Structure No. of Hoarding Structures 1No 1 H.No.B-2, Vikrampuri Colony, Karkhana, Secunderabad P.No.57, P&T Colony, Trimul her , Secunderabad H.No.178, Above White House Hotel, Ka rkha na, Secunderabad 2 ? 6 7 4 10 P.No.60, Sy.No.201, China Thokatta, Bowenpally, Secunderabad Shop No.3-'1 0-5/1 to 6, Opp Saba Hotel, Trimulgherry X Road, Secunderabad P.No. 1 63, Old Vasavinagar, ' Karkhan, Secunderabad o P.No.6-R3-15(new), Chanulal Bowli, Sikh Village, Secunderabad P.No.4/A, Paiagh Colony, S.P.Road, Secunderabad Plot No.3, Bapuji Nagar, Bowe n ecunderabad '1-10-316, Sy.No.1 30, Bapuji Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad 1 No. 1No '1 No 1No 1No lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitlon, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 to extend the interim orders dated 30-06-2023 passed in Writ Petition No.16722 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKAR REDDY, REP. 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: sRl K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CONTONMENT BOARD lNo 1No 1No. 1No The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. L6722 oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petationer on record, Mr.Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of f ndia, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Rao/ tearned Standang Counsel appearing 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/t156 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/20 23 / I 156.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief : The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style of ..Ikar Outdoor Advertising, R/o.P.No' 16, Road No 13' Banjara Hills' Hyderabad- 034 and eking out his livelihood' The petltioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoardings on the roof top of 1) H.No. B-2, Vikrampuri Colony, Kharkhana' 2) P.No. 57, P&T Colony' Tirmulgherry' 3) H.No l7B, Above White House the Premises i.e Secunderabad, Secunderabad, Hotel,Kharkhana,Secunderabad'4)P'No'60'SyNo201'China Thokatta,Bowenpally,Secunderabad'5)ShopNo'3-10-5/1to 6, OPP. Saba Hotel, TirmulgherrY X Roads, Secunderabad, 6) P.No. 163, Old Vasavinagar, Kharkhana' Secunderabad' 7) P'No' 6-R3-15(new), ChanulalBowli' Sikh Vlllage' Secunderabad' B) P.No. 4/A, Paiagh Colony, S'P Road' Secunderabad' 9) Plot No' 3 Bapuji Nagar, Bowenpally, Secunderabad and 10) 1-10-316' Sy No. 130 Bapuji Nagar Bowenpally' Secunderabad by maintaining all safety standards, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes without any default. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the 2nd respo n de nt Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General Public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News Paper dated L2.06.2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed immediately in view of Public safety on or before 30.06.2023' Hence the Present writ Petition PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The impugned Public Notace dated L2.O6.2O23 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O23/LL56 issued by the 2\"d 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 roof top of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30.06.2023, Agencies and Owners of the building Failing to comply with notice will be 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 30th lune 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.\" 5, The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the I l 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 hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public Places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erectlng of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of PenaltY charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly materlal. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board that this last meeting and pended for matter was placed in 5 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 penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise for the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The PCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting, the matter was pended for two reasons and now both have been addressed. After the detailed discussion, the Board resolved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from 01.11.2022\"' 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the I 6 Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the loth day of May, 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"t131 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 ra in s. 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. 1 The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. 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, Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.l Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri 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 all the rooftop hoardings along with ats structures be removed in view of 8 ; public safety on or before 30th )une, 2023 , failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2O22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2O06.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.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 exceeding 15 feet from qround level and have comoleted heir allotted term shall be removedim mediatelv bv G MC. Those advertisement elements which have an onooino allotment oeriod m after com lon o IM n Further if an m n rem ved for whatever reaso n n oermission shall be accorded and the AIN shall be automaticallv cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2OO6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"( f 7) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to rninimise 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 I material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.\" 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16613 of 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. EVANT PR VI 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 Executrve Officer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufFicient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhocd, the Chief Executive Offlcer, by notice in writing may, require the owner, or paft- 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, 2OO6, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc,- o l0 . . ( 1) Every notrce, 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 glving 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 II affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which it relates. (3) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" 10. Learned counsel 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 natural justice, (ii) It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board has published a Public Notice on 12.06.2023 in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers/ whereby the owners of the respective buildings .-< ( ii) (iii) 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 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 Policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the (iv) t3 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. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION : 12. 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 14 sl. No. 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: VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element above 15 feet in hei ht from rou nd level Erection of Unauthorized Advertlsement element below 15 feet in height from round Ievel Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Advertisement without ermtsston 13. 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 have comDleted their allo 1 Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day Rs.50,000/- Per Day 2 3 Rs.50,000/- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Na me board exceeding ge of the building 15%o Fronta Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 5 Rs.10,000/- Per Day 6 f Rs.10,000/- per violation Rs. 10,000/- per violation Rs.1,000/- for each wall Rs.50,000/- Per Day !1ng oster Rs.2 000/- for each 10 B 9 Use of Moving, rotatin g {Qvertising Devices Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness more then allowed limit Advertisement element without valid or Wall Writings Wall Posters Ce rtifica te variable message Operating an Structural Sta 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner & Cutout qround level an tted term shall l5 e removed imm ea ve m elements which have an onq inq allotment oeriod shall be removed immediatelv after completion of the time oeriod. G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.O4.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. L4. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and aFter its removal, if the Petltioners 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 20,04.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the speciFic instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearly states that t6 tho adv r lsem tel nts wh ar rea exr nth roun on h b s x edin 15f tf it oround IEVel and have comDleted their allotted terms s m hall b remov dim edia b M ho dv em elements which have an onooinq allotment Deriod shal! be removed immediatelv after c ron omole of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the ,onooino altotment period, (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). 15. 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 sectron 318 deals with 'service of notice'. In the present case admittedry 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 fired by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specificaily stated that a pubric 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. t1 16. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated t2.06.2023 clearly indicates that it is a Final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution oF the Board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under 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 ot 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 fited challenging the public notice, dated L2.06.2023, 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 T l8 the Public order will No.2-Board accorda nce law.\" 5 also indicated that if the same is not done before the said date, action will be Initiated as per the Cantonments Act' 2006andtheyWereliabletopaypenaltyaSdecidedby 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 sotely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.06'2()23' ln the circumstances, post the matter on 11 07 2023 for filin g counter-affidavit' Pending further orders' resPondent No'2 is directednottotakeanyfurtheractionpursuantto notice, dated 12'O5 '2023' However' this not be come in the waY of resPondent to take dhY, aPProPriate action' in with law, by following due process of t7. 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 I9 action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 12.06.2023 exercise oF issuing individuar notices and foilowing the mandatory procedure as raid down under section 2g7 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on reco rd . 18. ft is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road saFety, aesthetic character and visual appearance oF the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public aood, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisFies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposing the restrictions.', IS as issuan o kin o rva st f r ce of the aid G o.. is co nc rned Le., .Ms. .68 e .o4.2 nor ts u ts tn he oresent wr t oetition. Si ce, the o t .Ms. 8 e .o4.2 tn reasn r twr challenqe f l0 tition. Th ls ue ln he re en easc a vl la ron ca f id o n n e n r ba h n rd e c nto m nt ct tn t to s 7 18 n e I t 4 2 cl s lea r vi lati n t .o.Ms.No. 2.b). u o tn ha t re ls le f iot ti n f T in the resent case. This Court Dnncloles of nat ral rustice he to er o h ha t f e irm o to t ts othEDresent imDu qned on notrce riorto rssutn b en Dut nd es a tor Me d te 3 1 5 he 20 a d b th 1 t a th u ne or er nt t nd itt s borne irn n nd r s nd t e a flo to rec rd th at n av as tn of he rd rs lm n d nd th re re th or er iol lo ota It I a u ned t tn r ru le. o ne t h nd rab d c 20 hi o Authon t determi ne the Cantonment Board is an e to e hts of u ec h t toa t r cti nd nt me icia I I R u cl e al h o h c e to to r at u he n ln h 2t the Detiti ner or oivino an o Dortunitv to the Detationer to reDresent his or her case i the manner known to law. This Cou rt is of the firm ooin ion that the imouoned notice s final or providinq an o h has be n tedl wl h pportunitv of hearino to the Detitioner a nd which even accordino to the earned counsel ao rrno on behalf of the resoondent is contrarv to the sta nda rd nrocadrrra l:i own und r qa'.fi.rn rO7 and 318 th tt f Cantonmen t Act, 2OO5. 2L. 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 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 civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambaguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. 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 L2lS, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate,,. In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), ,where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?,' Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. T 23 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 adminastrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice\". 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS\" at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach oF natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p.476, para 95) T 24 \"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 discrimination 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 Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 23. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in 'SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA,,, the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requarements of audi alteram partem l5 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. 7n 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 alfording 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'. j l6 The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty p u blic relations exercise.\" 24. In .'MANGILA L V. STATE OF M.P., reDorted in (2OO4l 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. fn other words, a statutory silence should be taken to imply the need to observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 1O) observed as under: \"7O, Even if a statute is s ent and there are no oositive words in the Act or the Rules made und, could n wron ,n outth need to hear the rtie whose ohts and DA tnte are likelv t'o be affected bv the orde that mav be oassed. and makino it a reoutremen tto follow a fair Drocedure before takino a decision. unl'ess fhe statute Drovides 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 f 21 should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial 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 iustice or to Drevent miscarriaoe of iustice. Principles of natural iustice do not suDDlant the law, but supolement it, These rules operate onlv in areas not covered bv anv law validlv made. Thev are a means to an end and not an end in themselves 25. In \"CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\", reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in \"DTC v l8 MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article L4, Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and violative 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 14. 26. In ISAHARA 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 1\"42(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 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. n' i i 29 27. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.P.\", reported in (2011) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"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.Jain, 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 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 issue, 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 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunaty 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 30 affected party being given an opportunity of beang heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an actron 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.\" 24. 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, 20O6 had not been adhered to by the 2nd respondent. It is settled I w when a statute describ es or reouires a thino to be done in a oartic lar manner it should be done in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) The Division Bench of Aoex Court in its iudqment dated 04.1O.2O21 in SuDertech Ltd.. V . Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfa re Associataon and Ors., reoorted in 2O2 1 sCC Online S 3422 Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir (1936) 1.R.63 referring to Taylor Ahmed Vs. King Ind Ap372 and Emperor reported tn ll Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors., 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 laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it an any other way. 29. Takinq into consideration the aforesaid facts and I t t I lr n f h and in view of the law I down bv the Aoex Court in the various .Iudoments as (referred to and extracted above) and in the lioht of discussion as arrived at as above. the Writ Petition is allowed as Draved for. The resDondent No.2 is directed not to take anv fu heraction oursuant to the im Duo ned Public Notice vide No.SCB/RS/Roofto D H oardinos/2023/ 1156 dated L2.6.2O23. However it is clearlv observed i I l I 1 3l that this order will not come in the wa of the 2nd resDondent - Cantonment Board to take anv aoorooriate action in accordance to law as oer the orovisions of Cantonment Act, 2006 bv foll wino the sta nda rd oroced re oertainino to notice as orovided under Sections 7 and 1 fth onmen 2006. H ever there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition sha ll stand closed. SD/. N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANTREGlaTRAR //TRUE COPY// (< / (y SECTION OFFICER To, 1. 2. J- 4. 5. b_ BSR GJP The Secretary, For Defence, New Delhi, Union of lndia. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CONTONIMENT BOARD loPUCl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUTMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] Two CD Copies tr I HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16722 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS oR T liE $ 7^1 >^ ( e '-) a) ,J 22 nl.n nU 6 ( ). 2 a t o6sPATCHEO * rr)eH "