Chakri Advertising V. The Union of India

WP/16899/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Chakri Advertising, represented by S. Um_esh Chary, against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Union of India. The petitioner challenged the legality of a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, which ordered the removal of rooftop hoardings citing public safety concerns. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The court examined the procedural adherence of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found discrepancies in following the statutory requirements under the Cantonment Act, 2006.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686285 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"[32s21 lN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16899 OF 2023 Between: Qfakrt fQv-g{sing,.Rep S. Um_esh Chary S/o Late S.Raja Chary Age. 41 yrs P-q. 1Z-S8]t9, Vishnupuri Colony, Peerzaadiguda-MeOipatiy, -Medchal- Malkajgiri, Telangana-500098 ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence. New Delhi 2. 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 1210612023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023|1156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 121OG12023 in SCB/RS/Roof top. lA NO: I 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. Serial No. Location of the Hoarding Structure No. of Hoarding Structures 1 Opp Foot Ball Ground Trimulgherry, Secunderabad. 1No lA NO:2 OF 2023 Between: AND 1 The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Court Compound, Sardar Patel Road, Secunderabad-500003. ...PETITIONER Chakri_ Advertising, Rep S. pm_esh Chary S/o Late S.Raja Chary Age. 41 yrs ryg. ]1-98]19, Vishnupuri Cotony, Peerzaadiguda-Medipatiy, \"Medchat- Malkajgiri, Telangana-500098 ...RESPONDENT No.1 MRIT PETITTONER The^Uniorr.of lndia, Ministry of Defence, Represented by its Secretary, Room No.305, B-Wing Sena Bhavan, New Delhi. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this petitionl 2 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to vacate the lnterim order dated 03.07.2023 in wp No.16899 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 REPRESENTTNG FOR SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GAOI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR SECUNDERABAD CANTONMENT BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT P ON No. 16899 oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of fndia, appearing on behalf of respondent No.l, 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 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/L156 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SC8/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023 / LL56.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style oF \"Chakri Advertising,\" ) 9'- 2 Wo.L7-3A/13, Vishnupuri Colony, Peerzaadiguda-Medipally, Meclchal-Malkajgiri, Telangana- 500098 and eking out his livelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roof top hoarding on the roof top of the premises i.e., Opposite Foot Ball Ground, Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad by maintaining all safety standaids, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes without any default. [t is further the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent - Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General Public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News Paper dated 12.06.2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed immediately in view of Public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. PERUSEO THE RECORD. 4. The impugned Prrblic Notice dated L2.O6.2O23 bearing No.SCB/RSr/Roof Top Hoardings/2O231LL56 issued by the 2\"d respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, reads as under: \"PUBUC NOTICE The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings along with iti stluctures 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 Cantonnrent area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement h@rding 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 June 2023, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.\" 5. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2O22 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 4 Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4,x 6,and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shal! be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. lution: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues a.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. In this regard. the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penatty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. Shri l. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has feen finalized after detailed. 5 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 authorased to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from Ol.11.2OZZ.\" 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 l0th day of May, 20.23 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"[13I To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of 3 6 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 sarne were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavy rains. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Poticy vide GO MS No.6B, Dt.20.O4.2O20 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a nurnber of times, although certified as stab{e, 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 adveftisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,92O/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment,. the matter is placed before the Board for decision on 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. ay 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 Boa rd 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 pubtic. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3ofr June, 2O23, failing which action to be taken agaanst the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2O22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b) reads as under: 7 J-. 8 \"b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from gr.ound rever shafl not be permitted. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the bui{dings exceeding 15 feet from qround v h il e m e en if an a ve on sh AI s I F Oan 11 ov m ta e ts hi h rt !o s I e la P ra 7 te hei lt ed rm T dv a on al tm m fter co a d a rt be nt a t e w te r e a a th automaticaltv cance ed.,, a. The retevant 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 reguration of the erection of any encrosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.,, era da it 2n\" 9 u o e as n r I 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 fee as per Section 67 of the Act 2006, as stated above. However, for the reasons explained in the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 68 of GHMC, the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioner and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioner is intended to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 Feet from the ground level and the same will be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted. Therefore, for mere payment of license fee of hoardings will not create any right to the Petitioner to prevent the Board from issuing the impugned Public Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I further humbly submit that, the contention of the petitioner is that, the Public Notice issued to remove the hoardings without following due process of law, is factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Public Notice were clearly mentioned and also oave an thino e to remove hoardinos oooortunitv and brea tim bv virtue of a Putrlic Notice wherebv more than a week's time has been o anted. and bv virtue of the r imouoned Public Notice issued for demolition of the hoard nos- the Boa sn the rtl hA r) ntention to ctose the oetitioner and he c business of n verv well t0 s u ctin heh structures elow 15 feet from th oround level fter o inino r€ouisite sa ton m the Board. Therefore, there will not be any livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged. loss of revenue or 10. I further humbly submit that, the impugned public Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structures on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings; and as a policy decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re_erect their hoardings below 15 feet from ground level, as is permissible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.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 Article 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner is not falting in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged dS, as sub uent to so tio u P bti o h Board's ll issued callinq uoon the attention of the owners of !ruildan where ho rda stru h been so as the Advt Aoen es and oave sufficient time to remove the o hoardinos. Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, had issued the impugned Public Notice having jurisdiction to issue such Notice as per the provisions of the Act, as detailed supra. Lastly, the Board has not violated any statutory procedure and ordering to remove rooftop hoardings is followed by the Board Resolution which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2O2O of GHMC and accordingly the impugned Public Notice has been issued to remove rooftop hoardings to safeguard safety and security of the public and also to prevent shabby look of the Cantonment. In view of the above stated grounds, the Petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned Public Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits.\" 10. Learned 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. RELEVANT PROVTSIONS: 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 -i n t2 wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may, r€quire 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 requir.e 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.- (1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act oi- 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, l3 or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuoLts 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 nec€ssary 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, Iessee, 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 o!' 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 maanly 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, ) t4 (iii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. L2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affadavat 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 having advertisement hoarding structur€s are to be noted that if is the responsibility 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 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. l5 (iii) 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 Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the irnpugned 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. (iv) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated s r6 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.3632g of ZO22 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. D sc ssrON ND CO CLUsION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the cantonment Board, Secunderabad Herd 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 trafflc 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: st. No. VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) 1 ion of Unauthorized element Erect t from above 15 feet in hei Advertisement round level Rs.1,00,000/- Rer Day 2 ion of Unauthorize? element Erect ht from below 15 feet in hei Advertisement round level Rs.50,000/- per Day 3 illumination E rti USe of fl s a h n h I N n o s ts/ ti sta c e Ad m se n e t tho t U rm ss n o Rs.50,000/- Per Day , t7 L4. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 2O.O4.2O20 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround I I and have como ted their allotted term shall be removed immediately bv GHMC. Those advertasement elements urlr rh h.arra an on nrr =llafm ent nerl dc hall lra 4 Size of the AdvertisemenVName board exceeding 15olo Frontage of the building Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per DaY 5 Use of Moving, rotating or variable messale Advertising Devices Rs.10,0OO/- Per Day 6 Operating an Advertisement elem€nt without valid Structural Stability Certificate Rs.50,0OO/- Per Day 7 Advertisement on moving vehich where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on ttre body of the vehicle Rs.10,000/- per violation 8 Use of illuminated Advertisements with more then allowed limit brightness Rs.10,000/- per violation 9 Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writing 10 Wall Posters Rs.2,000/- for each poster 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5.0O0/- for each banner &Cutout I removed mmediatelv fter on of ttre time oeriod, a rnoleti G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new perrn ission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regu{ating the existing ) I8 advertisement elements below GHMC area. 15 feet from ground level in 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.6B 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 petiLioners intend to submit fresh Apprication 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.O4.ZO2O on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totalty contrary to the specillc instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearty states that dv rta nt sti n e nd on the uil tn 15 fro an h ve m th r o sh be oved i a e se elements whichhave an onq tn(l allotm t rtods all be I l9 removed immediatelv after moletion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onooi o allotment eriod' (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). 16. A bare perusal of Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonment Board pertaining to 'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with 'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 ( referred to and extracted above) had not been followed' Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Public Notice dated L2.06.2O23 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 ) ) 20 been decided that alt the rooftop hoardings atong 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 30h June, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of revying penarty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Sections 297 and 31g 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.163 37 ot 2OZ3 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 Secundera bad No.2. This Writ notice, dated requiring the Cantonment, takes notice for respondent Petition is filed challenging the 72.06.2023, issued by respondent advertisement agencies having public No.2, their advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and further it is also indicated that iF the same is not done before the said date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act, 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as ctecided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is filed. 2t Gri K.D L^+aer^.- ---^,l rc+r n unse r for resoondent No 2-Boanl submifted that unless nd until individual not ued owners of the advertise men hoardinos- nofurther t action would be taken solelv hasino UDon the oublic notice- da L2.O6.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on ll .O7.2023 for filing cou nter-affidavit. Pending further orderc, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further actaon pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.06.2023. However, thas order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take any, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" la. 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 ot 2023 cleady 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 27 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on record. 19. ft is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.No.3632B of 2C.22 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.,. Co ts m tn n se s sa d o- o N 8 ed2 4.2 2 rt e b ue I e t wri ti e n all .M da zfJ- 4.2 20 o th w tio T tn e cl viol on u a lai h to en e tn to s he 7 d31 Z3 clear vaolation of G. -Ms No-68 da 20.o4.2'J2,J clause 2.b). zlJ. is Court ooin tth rsc viol tion of es tha ere lear orinciples of natural i stice in theo sent case. This Court is of e firrn onin ha he 16nersorroht ha [)n f tt l,E been out on notice Drtortoi the Dresent mouoned sl-t nd Memo dated 3O.1O -2 15hvt he 2nd resnondent a dn rtor sinq the imouqned o er dated 3o.10.201s v the 2td res ndent in all fair ess ittedlv as b rne on n and adm record, the oetition rs haven ot lreenh eard rtor to oassin of the orders im ned a refore, the orders Dud n the tmDu ned are in clear violation of a e m rtem rule. 21. is Cou oD!nes that th Secund rabad Cantonment Board is an uthor!tv determine the ouest ons effectino riohts fs ubiects hasdutvt o act IUdiciallv and Resoondent- ca ment Board cannot ton decid airainst the riohts of e Det tion I without h rinq the Detitioner or orvtno fr ooDo nitv to t e oetitionef to thisorh er case in the tna owntola w. nner kn reo ()Dtnton ed noti This Cou rt is of the firm att he Du(In ce n 24 n I w h a e n I h rtn eti n nd w ev n e ar U I n al s n n co a s dar th d d I n 97 1 of Cantonment Act, 2OO6. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 .bserved as under : Para 1O : The adherence to principtes of natural iustice as recognized by a civilized States is of supreme lmpoitaiice when a quasi_ judicial body embarks on determining dasputes hetween the parties, or any administrative action involving civit consequences is in issue. These principles are well settted. 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. ft must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the pafi determinativety of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose shoutd be adequate so as to e,nable him to make his representition. fn the absence of a notice of the kind and such ?5 reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes whotly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a pafi should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. ft is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 7\"2L5, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justace 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. Para 11 : \"Principtes of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the ) J 26 courts as beang the rninimum protection of, the rights of the individuat against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rutes are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice,,. 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases I in ..STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAIESII 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 patet has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee 27 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 74i 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, howeveL 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.\" 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 INDIAi the issue was whetter the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements ol audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial t 28 undertaking under Section 1g-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regutation) Act 19S1. R.S. Sarkaria, J'speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. Desai. J. laid down the following principles of taw: (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 decisional hearing to the person affected administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, anC no full review or appeal on merits ngainst that decisior 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 format trappings and dilirtory features at the pre-decisional sLage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress o: frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstanc€s where compulst-ve necessity so demands,. The court must make every eFfort to salvage this cardinal ut ci and pi-e- the 29 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 and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.\" 25. fn \" GTLAL V. S F P tn 200 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 imply the need to obserwe 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 statu rbsilent and there are no oositive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder- there could be nothinq wronq in soellinq out need to hear the Darties whose riohE and ,n are likelv to be affected bv the that mav oassed. an kind it a reoutnementto d ma follow a fair dure before takino a decrston. unless the statute rovides oth 'e. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interctices of the statutq unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever he permitted to exclude the presentation _t- 30 ca e of a litigant,s defence or stand. ljven in the absence of a provision in procedural law:;, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi_ judiciat character, to adopt modatities necessary to achieve reguirements of natural iustice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principtes of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a gtven situation. ft has always principle. Where the statute -ts of suDD n been a silent e a cherished about the s obseryance of the principles of na,tural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantiat rights of parties are considerality affected. The application of natural justice hecomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment- rts aim is t(l secure iustice or to tm r natural tastice do t the law. but onlv in areas not s n e te n la a e d n YCE.,, 26. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TA.RAMANT DEflT-, reported in (1992) supp (2) scc page 501, a two-Jrrdge Bench of this Court held that the rule of aadi akeram partem is a part of Article 14. Simitarty, in ..DTC v. n 3t MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 6OO, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram pa,tem 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. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-ludge 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 hetd 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. 32 Constitution unless the to show cause is read requirement of an into it. The Court 2A. rn \"KESAR ENTERPRfSES LTD v. STATE OF U.p.-, reported in (2011) 13 SCC page 73g, rrherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar pradesh Excise Marnual which allowed the imposition of a penalty for breach oF the conditions of a bond without expressly issuing a :;how_ca use notice. D.K.Jain, l. speaking on behalf of thr: 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 hetd that the rule would be open to challengefor bein(l violative of Article 14 of the opportunity observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted lega! principies in regard to th-e applicablllty of the principtes of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of R.ule ,633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of naturat jusrtice 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 f,act that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the l3 affected party beang given an opportunity of being heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary.\" 29. In the present case Procedural 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 Ied law when a statute describes or uires a thinq to be done in a oarticular manner it should e done in that rnanner ornot at all- A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2O17) SCC Online Hyd 426)- B) Division of Co in it iudqment dated O4.1O.2O2Lan Suoertech Ltd.. Vs. E erald Court Owner dent We Jare. Asso atton and Ors. reoorted 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 Ap372 and The Benclr Aner Parbhani Transport Regional Transport reported in AIR 196O under: \"It is that certain thing in 34 Co-opgrative Authority, SC 8Ot at Society Ltd., Aurangabad Vs. The & Ors., para 13 observed as done in that way or not at alt and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thang to be done in a particular manner, it rnust 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 mcCe of doing somethiiiE necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in dny other way. where a a certain power is way, the a given thing todoa must be d 3 to n d r ti circumstances oft e se, and tn ewoft EI wla id th x u tn h v us ud m to nd th li to di ona arr Wr ts s ra e o ts a t a on U to he u n P c ce vt e No. B o o rd 20 56 35 dated 12.6.2O23. However- it is clearly observed that this order rrril! not cqllle in the way of the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board to take any approDriate action in accordance to law as per the provisions of Cantonment Act, 2006 bv followino the ndard procedure oertaininq to nglice as provided under Sections 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. sD/-N. SRt ARI ASSISTANT REGIS //TRUE COPY// SECTION O ICER To, 1 fl\" 9:grg!9ry, For Defence, The Union of tndia, New Dethi. z. tne L;htet Executive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonment, Board, Sardar ^ Patel_Road, Court Compound, SecunderabiOSOOObs. r. une cc to SRt CHETLURU.S_R!!r'l_!V{S, Advocare [OpUC] 4. Qne CC to SRt K.R. KoTESHWAR nno,',sc ron SEcur{denneno _ CANTONMENTBOARDTOPUCI 5. One CC to SRt GADI PRAVEEit XUTTI|RA (Dy. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF tNDtA) [OPUCI 6. Two CD Copies BN GJP :F\" HIGH COURT DATED: 1 111212023 ORDER WP.No.16899 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS s rr; r;^,,(, o ( o 0 3 lt,lAY 202{ ,1 I "