Rk Ads V. The Union of India

WP/16856/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by RK Ads challenging a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board directing 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 Cantonment Board defended the notice, citing public safety and adherence to a government order that restricts advertisement elements above 15 feet. The court examined the procedures followed by the Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found them lacking, leading to the decision to set aside the notice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724729 (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, MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., 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; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"132s21 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEA/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TI-TREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16856 OF 2023 Between: AND 1 2 RK Ads, Rep by its lvlanaging Partner, Ranjith Repala, S/o. R.Rarnesh, age 41 Yrs, Rt/o Rk Residency, H.No.8-12-58/R/18 & 19, Bhupeshnagar, Green Land Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad - 79 ...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 o'f the Constitution of India 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/212311156 as illegal and consequentially set aside th€ 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 below mentioned premises. Location of the Hoarding Structure H.No.42, Sanjeeviah Colony, Tadbund, Secunderabad Kubera Towers, Trirnulgherry X Roads Secunderabad No. of Hoarding Structure 2 No. Between: The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Court Compound, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad- 500003. AND 1 1No ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 RK Ads, Rep by its Managing Partner, Ranjith Repala, S/o. R.Ramesh, aqe 41 Yrs, Fl/o Rk Residency, H.No.B-1 2-58lR/18 & 1 I, Bhupeshnagar, Gre6n Land Colony, Karmanghat, Hyderabad - 79 ...RESPONDENT No.1/WRIT PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Ministry of Defence, Represenled by its Secretary, Room No.305, B-Wing Sena Bhavan, New Delhi. (R-2 not necessary party in this petition) ...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 dated 03.07.2023 in WP No.1 6856 of 2023 in respect of the impugned Public Notice dated 12.06.2023 and dismiss the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice under the circumstances of the case. 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: SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CONTONMENT BOARD Serial No 1 2 The Court made the following: ORDER lA NO: 2 OF 2023 THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 1 856 0F ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.CheUuru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Cantonment 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 t2.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/1t56 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 jn SCB/RS/Roof top Hoa rdings/20 23/ t t56.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner rs carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the narne and stylc of \"lt.K Ads,\" R/o. B-12- 2 5B/R/18 & 19, Bupesh Nagar' Greenland Colony' Karmanghat' Hyderabad- 500079 and eking out his livelihood The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoardings on therooftopofthepremisesiel)H'No42'sanieeviahColony' Tadbund,secunderabadand2)KuberaTowers,TirmulgherryX Roads, 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 alonq wrth its StructuresberemovedimmediatelyinViewofPublicSafetyonor before 30.06.2023 Hence the present writ petition P R SE HER 4. The impugned Public Notice dated 1^2'06'2()23 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O23/Lr56 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 ' 3 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 tevied 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 June 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequenUy 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 hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantoament wrth a view to restract such acts oF unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: - i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised 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 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 5 proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a cornmittee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB infornred 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 01.11.2022.\" 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the lOth day of May, 2O23 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\". 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 ra ins. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.O4.2020 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 ZO22-23 is Rs. 1,08,40 ,920/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the resadents 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. 7 Resolution: reg u lating The CEO aPPrised the Board about 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.1 Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural safety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural safety' PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth June, 2O23' failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No' 15, dt'29'O9'2()22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2OO6\"' 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms'No'68 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 vel hav com ted ir al ed m tb removedi mmedi telv bv GHMC. Tho adv rtisement m n s whi h v an all en eri shall ber emov d immediatelva r comDletio of th tim ert d rth af a en lem ti ov for w t hi issi sh co d th l! au omaticallv ncell d.\" 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 Iand situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.,, oun er ffi avit fi ed t 2nd re n t ln DA icula , Paras7,9, 10 and 11, reads as under: e n N 9 \"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 9 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 erectron 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 wrthout following due process of law, is factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Public Notice were clearly mentioned and also oave an oDportu itv and breathinq time to remove hoardinos bv virtu of a Public Notice wherebv more than a week's time has been oranted, and bv virtue of the imouon Puhlic otice tssued for demolition of the N hoa rd inqs. the Board has no intention to close the business of the oetitioner and he can verv welt tart th b -ere he hoardin struct res below 15 feet from the oround lev I after sa nction obtainino reouisite from the Board. 10 s Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged. 10. I further humbty submit that, the impugned public Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure 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.6g 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 Artrcle 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violation of principles of naturat justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) violation of statutory procedure. ln the present case, the Petitioner is not falling in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged as, as su bse uent o Board's Resolution, the impuqned Publtc Notic has been issued callinq uoon the attention of the owne of uil swh ero din tr h a r en ted he Advt. A n an 11 u te am In view of the miserablY failed RELEvANT PR VISION ve h o above stated groundsf to establish anY Prima S: the Petitioner facie case to 9r,r r s Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonrnent Eoard' represented by the Chief Executive ffiicer' 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 0f 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' interfere with the impugned Public Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent and the writ Petition is devoid of any merits\"' 10, Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply aff'davit 'n W'P'No'16613 of 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder' Section 297 of the Cantonment Act' 2OO6' 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 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, 2OO6, reads as under: I!.jB. 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. 13 (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 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.\" 11. 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 lald down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, 74 (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 L2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placang reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board has published a pubtic Notice on 12.06.2023 in Shakshi (Telugu). Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibitity of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which action woutd be initiated as per the Act, 2006. (ii) Thereafter, the individual notices were atso issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which the advertrsement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. (iii) The issue regarding regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect 15 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 revenu€ 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 securrty 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 relrance on the ludgment dated L7.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. 16 sl. No. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 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 srze 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: VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day 1 above 15 feet in height from ground level 2 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.50,000/- Per Day _ belqw 15Jeet in hqlght from ground level Use of flashing lights/Non static illuminati rn Rs.50,000/- Per Day Advertrsement without -permrsston 3 on 4 Stze of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day l5olo Frontage of the building Use of lvloving, rotating or variable message Rs.10.000/- Per Day Advertrsrng Devices Operatrng an Advertisement element without valid Rs.50,000/- Per Day 5 6 l -Stru ctu ra l Stabrlityt ertificate 7 L7 Advertisement on moving vehiate *t,e.e rr,\" I n.i o,oo0/- per violation advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Use of illuminated Advertisements more then allowed limit wrth brightness Rs. 10,000/- per violation wall Writings ;Rs.1,000/- for each wall 8 9 _ lwrttlll 10 Wall Posters 11 Unauthoriied erection of Banners & Cut Rs 2,OO0/- for each oster Rs.5,000/- for each banner &Cutout i outs I 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 nd level and have comoleted their allo ed term sha ll qrou rem imm b M T dve men vea otn ment dsh removed imm iatelv a r comoletion of the time oertod. G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulatrng the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. 18 15. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the petitioners intend to 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 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, Z.b) which clearly states that tho advertisement elements w ich are alreadv ex tino on the qround on the uildinos exceedin 15 feet from qround level and have c mDleted their allo d terms sha ll be removed immedi telv bv GHM C. Those advertisement elements which have an onqoinq allotment Deriod sh ll be removed immediatelv a comDletion of the time riod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did 19 not consider the issue of the 'onqoano allotment raod' (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). 16. A bare perusal of Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly. indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonment Board pertaining to'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with 'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. Because even in the counter afFldavit filed by 2\"d 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 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 alonq with its structures be removed in view of the public safety' Therefore, Thrs Writ notice, dated req uiring the advertlsoment the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th lune' 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 pro.edrr\" 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 admlssion ' Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar' learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No l' Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment' No.2. takes notice for resPondent Petition is filed challenging the 12.06.2023, issued bY respondent advertisement agencies having hoarding structures on the rooftop of the public No.2, their 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,actionwillbeinitiatedaspertheCantonmentsAct, 2006andthcyWereliabletopaypenaltyasdecidedby the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice' the present w rit Petitio n is flled ' Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No'2-Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respect've 27 5Nl owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.O6.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on 1l .O7.2023 for filing counter-affidavit. . Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further actaon 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 dtry, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submlssion 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 ot 2Q23 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 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 on record. 22 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the . respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public Aood, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposing the restrictro n s. \" This Court is not makinq nv observations in so far nce t hes id G.o rs con d r G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.04.2O20 nor it is the subiect issue in the oresent writ Detitio n. slnce- t ere s no challenoe h N 2 4.2 2 tn h wrl etition. The i tn h n v the standard procedure laid down in the Secunderabad Cantonment Act pertaananq to Sections 287 and 318 and clear viol n of G,O.M N O clause 2.b). I I 23 2(). This Court ooines that there is clear violation of ln of natural he resent case. tn is of the firm ooinion that the oetitaoners ouoht to have been out on n tice orior to issuino the Dr ent imouoned Memo'dated 3O.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd resoondent and orior to oassinq the imouoned order dated 3O.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd resoondent in all fairness and admitted!v as borne on record, the oetitioners have not been eard orior to passinq of the orders impuqned and therefore, he orders imouqned are in clear violation ol audi aIteram Dartem 21. Thas C urt ooines that the Secu ndera bad Cantonment Board is an Authoritv to determine the questiOns effectinq riqhts of subiects has dutv to act il nd Res o n Board cann decide aqaanst the riohts of the oetitioner without hearino the Detationer or oivino an oDDortunitv to t e Detitioner to f CDresent his or her case in the manner known o law t This Court is of the firm ooinion that the imouoned notice is a final order which has been Dassed admittedlv without itv of hearinq to the petitioner and ru le. ril z4 which even accordanq to the learned counsel aooea rr nq on behalf of the resoondent is contrarv to the standard nraead r re lai n und Qaction 297 rnd tl dattt tlr a r 318 f Cantonment Act. 2006. 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 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 partaes, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well setfled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonty 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 unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of 25 the case before any adverse order is passed agaanst 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 LZLSt 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, anterrogate 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. Judicia! treatment has added light and 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 individua! against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judiciaS and administrative authority 26 sN. 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. 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 Articte 14. The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 1a: (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. Shorily put, the sylogism runs thus: )7 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 l4i therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a ' violation of Article 14. Article 74, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of decid ing 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 Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of 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' 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, 1.., 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 \"MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2OO4) 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, In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to amply 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 silent and there are no Dositive 's in the Act or the Rules made c ld be nothin wro out the need to hear the oarties whose riohts and likel to be affected b mav be Dassed, and makino it a reouirement to il, w tr rocedure before taki unless the statute orovides 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 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 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 irrespective of the extent of its apptication 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 iustice, such statutory sitence 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 miscarriaae of iustice- PrincID es of natural iustice do not suoolant the I,aw- but I s,unnlement it. These ru es oDErate onlv in etees not I, covered v anv law valid made. Thev are a means an end nendi the lv 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. Similarly, 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 equa!aty clause in Article L4. 31 Therefore, any administratave actaon 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 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 142(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 Sectron 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. 28. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.P'\", reported in (2O11) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validrty of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual whrch allowed 32. 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-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 hetd 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 appticabitity 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 natura! 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, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being hea rd. \" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requrrement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the sard Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the 33 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 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been adhered to by the 2\"d respondent. It is settled law when a statute describes or reo utres a thinrr ia bed a1na in r narlia ular m, ri rtar. i+ chould be dnna in that manner or n at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2O17) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) The Division Bench of ADex Court in its ud ment 2021 in S Ltd. Vs. Em r Court O ner Resident Welfare Association and Ors., reDorted in 2O21 SCC Online SC 3422. referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap37Z and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regiona! Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors,, reported in AIR 1960 SC 8O1 at para 13 observed as u nder: 34 \"It is that where a power is g iven to do a certaan thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at al! and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done an a particular manner, it must be done in that inanner 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. 30. Taki q into considerat on the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the various Judqments as (referred to and extracted above) and in the liqht of d iscussion as arrived at as above, the Writ Petition is allowed as oraved for. The resDondent No.2 is directed not to take anv further action oursuant to the imouo ed Public N otice vide No.SCB/RS,/R ftoo Hoardinos/2 o23l tt56 12.6.2O23. How v I ea rl that hi order will not come in the wav of the 2nd resoondent - Cantonment Board to take anv aoorooriate action in accordan etol s r the r VI sof ntonm nt 35 5Nl Act. 2OO6 bv followino he standard oroc ure Derta lntno to noticeasD vided under Sections 297 and 318 of the To, nmen oo6. EV he all no or as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition sha ll stand closed. SD/- N. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 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 IOPUCI One CC to SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CONTONN/ENT BOARD loPUCl One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OPUC] Two CD Copies 1 2 3 4 Cl BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16856 of 2023 ALLOW]NG THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS o(r' 1HE S rA a€ k J o o 19 APH 2024 o€.spATcH eO { ). a+ t * o "