Sri Bhavani Ads V. The Union of India Ministry of Defense

WP/16362/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Sri Bhavani Ads and S. Jegan Reddy against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Ministry of Defense, challenging the legality of a notice issued for the removal of rooftop advertisement hoardings. The petitioners argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice, as the hoardings had been in place for several years without prior issues. The respondents defended the action citing public safety and aesthetic concerns, referencing a government order that restricts advertisement elements above 15 feet. The court's decision focused on procedural improprieties in the issuance of the notice, leading to the setting aside of the notice and the protection of the petitioners' rights.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686297 (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 RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: Y SHARATH BABU
• Keywords: Advertisement Hoardings; Audi alteram partem; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 226; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"l325,2l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAYOF DECEMBER TWO THOTJSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16362 oF 2023 Between: 1. Sri Bhavani Ads, Rep by its Proprietor R.Mallesh, S/o R,illaiah Aqe 52 vears Occ Business R/o i4-i80/135, Saibaba officeis cotoni, becinoeraG? : 500056. 2. S.Jegan.Reddy, S/o S.Jan Reddy, Age 6B years, Occ Business R/o p.No.1/A, Near Mallareddy Garden, Secunderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia Ministry of Defense, Rep by it Secretary Room No.30S, B- Wing Sena Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad - 500003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstanc€s stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more padicularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the final Notice vide Lr.No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings t21231123g datd 171612023 sent /forwarded by Whats up to the Petitioner about two dais back without fo{lowing - due process of law , as illegal ,bad in law, without opportunity and in violation of principles of natural justice as (he hoardings on roof top are existing on priva€ buildings for last sev,eral years and set aside the same as being violative of cardinal principb of Audi Alteram Paterm , and without any reason or rhyme or basis and consequently restrain the Respondent No.2 from removing the advertisement hoarding structures on roof top in P. No.1/A, Near Maltareddy Garden, Bowenpally, Secunderabad. lA NO: 1 oF 2023 lA NO:2 oF 2023 Between: AND Petitioner. Petition uhder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the. affidavit fired in support of the peiitio;, itr\" nign court may o\" pr\"-\"ueo to , restrain the Respondent No-2 fr.om . removing the adverti\".rn\"nt- noriiini structures on roof top in p.No.1/A, Near Maiiareddy Garden, g.*\"\"prUy , Secunderabad. The chief Executive officer, secrrnderabad cantonment Board, sardar pater Road, Court Compound, Secunderabrd _ S0d0o3. ...PETITIONER/RESpONDENT No.2 '1. Sri Bhavani Ads, Rep by its proprietor R.Mallesh. S/o R iflaiah Ana 62 rraa* -o+__d;;;;\"illi\"ij-ieorissl'b;i6;dt\"6H#ts3\"t;lf ,tjgfi .:r\"[:f ] 500056. 2. S.Jegan Reddv. S/o S.Jan Reddy, Age 68 years, Occ Business R/o p.No.1/A\" Near Mallareddy Garden, Secundera6ad ...RESPONDENT No.1 &ZpETITIONER 3. The Union of lndia Ministry of Defrense, Rep by it Secretary Room No.305, B_ Wing Sena Bhawan, New bethi iv\" v' r'l ...RESpONDENT/RESpONDENT No.1 Petition under Section 'r51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to vacate the lnterim order dated 27.06.2023 in wp No.16362 of 2o23 in respect of the impugned Notice dated 17.06.2023 to enable the petitioner/2nd Respondent to take appropriate steps for removal of the rooftop hoardings of the writ Counsel for the Fetitioner : SRI Y.SHARATH BABU Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, . (Dy. SOLICTTOR GENERAL oF tNDtA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : bit x.R-xorESHwAR RAo, Sc roC,ce The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLC MRS JUSTICC SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 16362 OF 2023 OROER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Y.Sharath Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: 'lTo issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the final Notice vide Lr.No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/7239 dated 17.6.2023 sent/forwarded by What's up to the Petitioner about two days back without following due process of law, as illegal, bad in law, without opportunity and in violation of principles of natural justice as the hoardings on roof top are existing on private buildings for last several years and set aside the same as being violative of cardinal principle of \"Audi Alteram Partem\" 2 and without any reason or rhyme or basis and consequently restrain the Respondent No.2 from removing the advertisement hoarding structures on roof top in P.No.1/A, Near Mallareddy Garden Bowenpally, Secunderabad, in the Interest of lustice.,, 3 f P oners i rt The petitioner is an Ad agency in the name and style of 'Sri Bhavani Ads,, and had been in the said business for more than two decades. The pefitioner is having more than. 40 hoard.ings like Roof tops, Cantilevers, Unipoles, Bus stops Lollipops etc., in Hyderabad in various places at Shamshabad, Manikonda Narsingi etc. petitioner No.1 had entered into aqregn0eot with petitioner: No-2 about 20 years back on rertain conditions and erected roof top advertisement hoarding p.No.1/A Near Mallareddy Garden Bowenpally, Secunderabad, and carrying out the business without any hindrance from any corner by taking utmost care of the hoarding without causing any disturbance/difficulty to the public for the last several years. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner employed five to six workers to look after the structural stability to mainta in cleanliness on the roqf qn lhe_building-and ttlsJhe five to six workers are eking out their liverihood from the income derived upon it. Respondent No.2 had been collecting the advertisernent hoarding charges/fee from time to tirne and issuing acknowbdgment to the 1st petitioner, while so, the petitioners were shocked to see ttre impugned notice dated L7.06.2023 issued by Secunderabad Cantonment Board, through What's up to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. PERUSED T E RECORD. 4. The impugned notice vide Lr.No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/L239 dated 17.06.2O23 issued bythe 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioners, reads as under: \"It is noted by this office that you are having a rooftop boarding structure on the rooftop of the below mentioned premises. 2. In this connection, it is to inform that the Board has resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety. 3. Therefore, you are hereby directed to rernove the rooftop hoarding structure on or hfore 30h June, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of levying perElty 3 st. No. Location of the Hoarding Structure No. of Hoarding Structures L 01 No. P.No.1/A, Near Garden, Secunderabad. Mallareddy Bowenpally, 4 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006. The owner of the building will be personally liable for any damages caused or loss of life.,, 5. The True Extract of_ the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment -Bo11d, Secunderahad Held at the Confererice Hall. Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on .Thursday, the 29th day of September, 2(J22 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: \"[15J To consider imposition of penarty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthor.ised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board rneeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space Ba nners for erecting of flexis / ii) ReductiOo _of Benalty 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 urell as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out troardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Pobs and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Eoard that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised spaoe 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, aft6r examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after forrnation 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 Cantonrnent and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The PCB further stated that in the earlier Board l,teeting, the matter was pended for two reasns and now both have been addressed. 5 6 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 aUth-drised to formulatb a procedure for implementing the same from Or_.1:-.2022.- 6 The True Extratt of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonrnent Board, Secunderabad Hetd at the Conference flall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on .Wednesday, the 1O6 day of tttay, 2(i23 at 11OO hours, reads as under: '-[13] To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The char.ges are being collectecl as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt.15.10.2014 as per the r-ates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19.IO.2O2O. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and comrnuters during heavy rains. The rrtrni.ipji Administration and U rban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement policy vide GO 't MS'f!o.68, DL2O.O4.2O20 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heighB from the ground level have collapsed a number of tirnes, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only For advertisemeflt €lements below 15 feet from ground level. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from l-loardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.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 submifted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural safety. 8 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 resolv€d that atl .the rooftop hoardings along with its stt0ftures be ierhoved in view of public safety on or before 3Oh June, 2O23, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.Zg.Og.ZO22 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) A.ll the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground. level shafl not be permittecl. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround n a r all rm all em v ta T o v m t le ch ve n a! tm t t r sh o t I fter co leti of e r en e n re ha ver a n hiftin r s be rd an rN all autom tical cancelled.\" a. The relevant seetions of Tfte Cantonment Act, 2OO6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: 9 *(17) the control and supervision oF places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minirnise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any encficsure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.\" 9 Counter affidavit filed by the 2\"d Resoondent, in particular, Paras 7, 9, 1O and 11. reads as under: \"7. I humbly submit that, as a reply to the allegations in Para No.s of the Affidavit, with regard to collection of the hoarding charges/fee from time to time from the Petitioners, 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 Petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioners are 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. t0 Therefore, for mere payment of license fee of hoardings wilt not create any right to the petkioners to prevent the Board frorn issuing the impugned Notice to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I humbly submit'thEt. as a reply to the allegations in Para No.7 of the Affidavit, it is incorrect to allege that impugned order nullifies the hard work, inve],r\"n,. employment in one stroke of a pen by issuing impugned order. It is also incorrect to allege that after receiving amounts towards license fee of hoardings issued the present impugned Notice/Order without following due process of law or giving an opportunity to submit their objections. Such contention as factually not correct and misleading, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Notice were clearly mentioned and also oave an o nt nd ove h ardi s tvt e o th na 's me s n n an ol on t e vt e th o s B rd a n n n e s P rs n the sa es -e h I ur 5 o utsite san to tram e oa Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue, as alleged. 10. I humbly submit that, as a reply to the allegations in Para No.B of the Affidavit, ,the Order/Notice, which is impugned in the Writ petition was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on two counts _ one is to ll 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 f€et from ground level, as is permissible in GHMC qrea, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC, as detailed zupra. In view of the same, the question of conducting any inspection or receiving any complaint against the advertisement hoardings by the neighbours, does not arise, as even in the absence of any violation of public safety or in the absence of any untoward incident, the proposed action has been initiated by the Eloard for the reasons explained above. Therefore, pursuant to the above mentioned Notice/Order, the Writ Petitioners are required to remove the rooftop hoarding structures from their property. 11. I humbly submit that, the present Writ Petition has been filed without arraying the Secunderabad Cantonrnent Board as a proper and necessary PaftY, despite knowing the fact that, the impugned Public Notice has been issued pursuant to the Resolution passed by the Board vide CBR No.13 dated L0.O5.2023, and non-joinder of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board as a proper and necessary party, the Petitioners are not entitted to seek any relief questioning the impugned Notice issued by the znd Respondent, which was issued pursuant to the Resolution passed by the Board.\" t2 10. Learned counsel. appearing on behalf of the petitioners adopted the reply affidavit in W.p.No.16613 of. 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. P o Section 297 of the,Cantonment Act, 2006,_reads as under: \"297. Power to req.uire 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 Omcer, in a ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, prcjtection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbogrhqod, 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 sarne or may require him to nepair, 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 ehief Executive Officer, imminent, he shall forthwith take such. steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section 318 ofthe Cantonment Act, 2006, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc._ L tl (1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law rnade thereunder shall, sa e as otherwise expressly provided, be sened or pr€sented- (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 caflnot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if within the cantonment, or by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to some adult member or servant or his family, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the buildings or land, if any, to which it relates. (2) When any such notice, order or requisition is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, Iessee or occupier therein, afld 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 l4 a,fixed 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 aR adult memberbr servanLbf hii famity shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.,, laid down 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts forth the foltowing submissions: (i) That the impugned notice is in viotation of the (ii) (iii) principles of natural justice, It is without jurisdiction, It is in violation of statutory procedure under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the adopted a notices. Learned counsel for the petitaoners placing respondent - Cantonment pick and choose policy and Boaid issued had the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition shourd be allowed as prayed for. t2. Learned counsel appearing on behatf of the 2nd Cantonment Board on the other hand placing retiance on the averments made in the affidavit puts forth the following subrnissions: Respondent on the has published a public Notice on in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicle counter The Board 72.06.2023 (i) ( ii) (iii) t5 (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the strudures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which actioh would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which ttrc advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue regarding regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect of the safety and security of the residence was discussed at length in the Board Meeting held on 10.05.2023 and in the said Board Meeting by taking into consideration of the New Advertisement Policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. (iv) t6 The Cantonment Board is removed the hoarding structures under the provisions rooftop of the Cantonment Act and therefore ther.e is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds _ One is to protect safety and security of the public, the othei one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonrnent due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision. Learned counsel appearing on behall. of the Respondertt _ Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 11.07.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.3632g of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. ssr N D N USI 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 29h day of September, ZO2Z at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - FirsHy - to consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, which however, is not the subject issue in the present writ petition, and Secondly - the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4, x 6, and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of t7 environmental friendly materia I and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as fol{ows: 14. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated ZO.O4.2O2O 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 comoleted th st. No. VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) 1 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element above 15 feet in heiqht from qround level Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day 2 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element below 15 feet in heiqht from ground level Rs.50,0O0/- Per Day 3 Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Advertisement without permission Rs.50,0O0/- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Name board 15olo Frontage of the building exceeding Rs.10O/- Per Sq.ft. Per DaY 5 Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Advertisinq Devices Rs.10,OO0/- Per Day 6 Operating an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stability Certificate Rs.50,000/- Per Day 7 Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisernent is placed in a manner of any additional board, structur€ or projection on the body of the vehicle Rs. 10,000/- per violation 8 Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness more then allowed limit Rs.10,0OO/- per violation 9 Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writinq 10 Wall Posters Rs.2 000 - for each oster 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner & Cutout qround Ievel and ha el r aIotted te shall l8 be m ad e t a a llo hall oJ G.o.lvls.No.68 dated ZO.O4.ZO2O which pertaini to the Guidelines from granting new perm.ission for advertisement €_le{r.leRts belsw 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below GHMC area. 15 feet from ground tevel in 15. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2O23. was passed incsnsonance 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 rernoval, if the petitioners intend to submit fresh Apprication for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from,the ground level and the sa.me would be considered and the left over license fee fc,r the remaining period will be adjusted is untenabte in view of the simple fact that G.o.Ms.No.6g dated 20.o4.2020 0n the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally cofltrary to the specific instructions as indicated in t n e be removed immediately by GHMC. Those advertisement l9 G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which ctearly states that those advertisement elements which are alreadv existinq nd on the buildin sex 1 oround level and ftave mD their allotted terms shall co lemen o ent riod sh removed immediatelv after MI' etion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onooinq allo ment oeriod' (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 had not been followed. Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondentat para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on it 20 record the mandatory procedure under section 297 and 318 sf the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been tollowed. 17. A ba.re perusal of the contents of the impugned notice dated 17.06.2023 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 resorutiort, of the Board it had been decided that alr the rooftop hoardings arong with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June,2023, fuiling which action wiil be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions oiCantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Sections 297 and 318 of the Cantonments Act has not been followed. It is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.p.No.16337 of 2023 as under: *Notice before admission. Sri Gadi pr,aveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri K.R..Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad, Cantonment, takes notice for respondent No.2. This Writ petition is notice, dated 12.O6.2023, filed challenging the public issued by respondent No.2, 2t requiring the advertisement agerrcbs lnving ttrcir advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are clirected to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and further it is also indicated that if the same is not done before the said date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act, 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is flled. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.06.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on tL .O7.2023 for fi ling counter-aFfidavit. Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.06.2023. However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take dtry, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by fotlowing due process of law.\" 14. The submission of Ehe learned counsel Sri K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2d respondent - Cantonment Board recorded in the order dated 27'06.2023 passed in W.P.No.16337 of 2023 clearly indicates that the 22 assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owner€ of the advertisernent hoardings, no further action wourd be taken sorery\"basing upon the pubric hcitice dated L2.Q6.2AB exercise of,issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under SeCUon 297 and 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.36328 of 2O22 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the r,espondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisernent use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visua.l appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by tfie respondents on the height, distance ancl all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public good, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test a.nd there is no illegality in imposing the restrictions.,, c ls ta s s an of e a n ts n s e so ar t) hia-t tta G.o Ms.N 6R dzterl ?o.o4.2 nor .l 2rl ii the su ass fi IG in the Dresent wrat Detition. Since, there is no challenqe to G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O in the Dresent writ oetition. The issue in the oresent case is clear violation of e standard idd raba Cantonment Act oertainino to Sections 287 and 318 and elaar violataon f G,O.McNa Aa A,}6A 2O.O4.2O2O cla 2.b). 2(). This Court oDines tha there is clear violation of DrinciDles of natural us in the nresent case. This I tice Court is of the firm ooinion that t e Detitioners h ouoht to been on no rior to tssu n re ed Memo dated 3O.1O.2O15 and orior to D sstno the im ned 30.10. 2()r_5 DUO order da bv the 2nd resoondent in alt fairness and admittedlv as borne on reco the oetitioners ve not b n hea Draor he rd zn'l to oassinq of the orders lmDuoned and he t re. the orderc imDuoned are in clear vtolationof a ,, alteram Dartem rule. 21. This Court orr nes that the s nderabad uthor Cantonment Board is a n itv to determine the I 24 n rt ts as e t an d a st e e tion w out arin of e n I r vt a na ron ts rh r nt an er own to I of e trm n tth tm n noti al rde wh h en sed dm tn an fh fln lon and t h v a rdi a ns rtn n tf t e !:es nd a to e nd re ad ow u fil tA 2 6 er e n2 7 3 8of e t 22. The Apex Court an the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 4O in ..UMANATH pANDEy & OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER,, at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para 10 : The adherence to principtes of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi_ judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the pirtGs, o. any adminGtrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well setfled. The first and i ?5 foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice as 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 the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The cbncept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 1215, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I 26 commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?,. Since then tlre principle has been chiselted, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added tight and luminosity to the concept, like potishing of a \"Principles of natural j.ustice are those rutes which have been taid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority white making an order affecting those raghts. These rutes 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 INDrA AND OTHERS v. RATESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,. at para 85 observed as under : *85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedurar propriety envisaged under Articre 14. The rure of audi alteram parti=m is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. diamond. Para 11 27 A Constitution Berrch of this Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held tfiat violation of the prirrciptes of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breaclr of natural justice irnplicates a violation of Article 14: (-SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article L4'. 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 iustice. 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 72, 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.\" 28 ?4. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in {1981) 1 Supreme Gourt Cases 664 in *SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF fNDIA-, the issue was whether the CCntral Government was required to comply with the requirements or audi arteram partem before it took over the management of an industriat undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the fndustries (Developrnent and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the majority consisting of himserf and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the fofiowing principles of taw: (SCC p. 689, para 44) obserwed as under: \"44. In short, the general pr-inciple _ as distinquished frona an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this r:ule of prior hearing but contemplates a post_ decisional hearing amountang to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alterarn 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 invorves civir consequences of a _grav.e nature, and, no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremery reructant to construe such a statute as 29 excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of alt its formal trappings and dilatory fieatures 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 sqve in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard 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 Aage 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 observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54., para 1O) observed as under: \"1O. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothang wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and 30 interest are likely to be affected by the orders that unless the statute provides otherwise. The principtes may be passed, and making it follow a fair procedure before of natural juEticE must be read interstices of the statute, unless given situation. It has always principle. Where the statute is a requirement to taking a decision, into unoccupied 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 taws, power inheres in every tribunal,/court of a judicial or quasi_ judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requiri:ments of naturat justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a obserwance of the principtes of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affeeted. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless fouM excluded by express words of statute been a silent cherished about the is to secure of frstiCe. oF necessary intendment... fts aim - justice- or to irrevei.it. misea?fiage Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas 3l not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themsetves.\" 26. In 'rcANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\", reporte{ 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 parfem enforces the equality clause in Article 14- 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. CITi reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section L42(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for 32 special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2_A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee, the requirements of observing the principles of natural iustice is to be read into the said provisions. 2A. rn \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.p.,,, reported in (2o11) 13 scc page 733, wherein it is herd that: \"the Court d-ealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar pradesh Excise Manual which allowed the imposition of a penarty for breach of the conditions of a bond without expressry issuin g a show-cause notice. D.K.Jaih, J. speaking on behalf of the two_Judge Bench hetd that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rure 633(7) is made. The court held that the rule would be open to challenge for 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) \"3{1. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted tegal principles in regard to the agiplicability of the principtes of natural iustice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of 33 direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Ercise Manual, the principles of natura! justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity orf hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwathstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contaan any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being heard.\" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary.\" 29. In the present case Procedural Impropriety ts evident and borne on record since the standard procedure laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 trad not been adhered to by the 2\"d respondent. It is settled law when a tute describes or reouires be one in a lar ma n r I be do in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online HVd 426). 34 B) s D x u !n d n a 2 ln 1 L m r rt w el s ta o nl e 34 2 referring to Taylor Vs. Tayloq. 1875 (1) Ch D,426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King r Emperor reported Parbhani Transport Regional Transport (1936) L.R.63 rnd Ap372 and Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The & Ors., Authority, SC 8O1 at Aurangabad para 13 observed as to an reported in AIR 196O under: 30. T \"It is that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performanc€ are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute req uires a particular thing to be done ln a particutar manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarity 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. n d n rcu s n ra n th vt fth law lai e 35 eva Ju (referred to and extracted abovel and in the liqht of as at as w ition b lo The re o.2 i no take fu u the i notICe vide Lr,No.SCB/RS./Roo Hoardinos 202311239 ftoI, 17.6 Howev r clearl d that order will not come in the wav of the 2'd resDOndent - Cantonment Board to take ann aDDrooriate a on tn cco tol w r the V s of Can 2 ollowin dard ertainin cea under 97 and 1 th Cantonm nt Act. 2OO6. Ho er. there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGTSTRAR- ,/TRUE,COPY// SECTION OFFICER to'r. t* Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Defense' Room No'3o5' B-Wing Sena Bhawan, t'lew Delhi. 2. The chbf Executive\"dih;r, secunderabgl.C^antonrnent Board, sardar Patel -' ndio, CorrtCornpotmo, Secunderabad - 50o0o3' 3. il;tc6 sniV.'snAnh'rH BABU, Advocate. ' roPUCl 4. one CC toSRI GATji.Fi{AVEE-N-K1JUTANI tOi, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA), Hish Court ioi ti.ri Stuit of Telangand ai Hvderabad' [OqU^C] ' 5. one cC to SRI x.n\"x6'ieEfr'frni nnoi' Sc for Secunderabad cantonment I Board. [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies. BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16362 of 2OZ3 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS G)q@ (oR -t HE S T4 t PArcHEg 22 tqp rui o' ( { + J o .A + a o t * Gre "