Sri Bhavani Ads V. The Union of India

WP/16384/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Sri Bhavani Ads and V.M. Narsing Rao Yadav, who are petitioners challenging the notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board for the removal of rooftop hoardings on their property. The petitioners argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The Cantonment Board defended its action by citing public safety concerns and adherence to a government order that restricts advertisement elements above 15 feet. The court's decision focused on the procedural improprieties in issuing the notice, particularly the lack of proper hearing and notice as required by law.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 724718 (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: K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: Y BABU
• Keywords: Audi alteram partem; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"132521 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IVIONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16384 OF 2023 Between: 1. Sri Bhavani Ads, Rep by its Proprietor R.lt/allesh, S/o R.illaiah Age. 52 years, Occ.,Business No 1-4-1801135, Saibaba Officers Colony, Secunderabad - 500056. 2. V.M.Narsing Rao Yadav, S/o V.lr/allaiah Yadav Age Citizen R/o P.No.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp. Secunderabad. 65 years ,Occ Alwal Raithu Senior Bazar, ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The Union of lndia, Ministry of Defense Rep by it Secretary Room No.305, B- Wing Sena Bhawan, New Eelhi. The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad - 500003- ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order, or Direction, more particularly one in nature of Writ of A/ANDAIVUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.2 in issuing the final Notice vide Lr.No.SCB/RS/ Rooftop Hoardings 1202311234 dated 17-6-2023 sent /forwarded by Whats 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 Paterm, and without any reason or rhyme or basis and consequently restrain the Respondent No.2 from removing the 2 advertisement hoarding structures on roof top in P.No.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp. Atwal Raithu Bazar. Secunderabad. lA NO:2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated 27.06.2023 in WP No.16384 of 2023 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 Petitioner. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to restrain the Respondent No.2 from removing the advertisement hoarding structures on roof top in P.No.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp. Alwal Raithu Bazar, Seuncera bad, Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI Y.SHARATH BABU counser ror the Respondent No. 1,,t# :A?i J,TAX=\"?#HXItF r ND|A) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI K-R,KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CB The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA T PETITI NN 1 4 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Y.Sharath Babu, learned counse! 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: \"To 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/t234 dated 17.6.2023 sent/forwarded by WhatsApp 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\" ) 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.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp: Alwal Raithu Bazar, Secunderabad, in the Interest of Justice.\" 3 The case of the P titioners in brief : The 1't 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 petitioner is having more than 40 hoardings like RooF tops, Cantilevers, Unipoles, bus stops Lollipops etc., in Hyderabad in various places like Shamshabad, Manikonda, Narsingi etc. The petitioner No.1 entered into agreement with Petitioner No.2 about twenty years back with certain conditions and erected roof top advertisement hoarding structures (01) on roof top of building of the petitioner No.2 in P.No.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp: Alwal Raithu Bazar, Secunderabad and carrying out the business without any hindrance from any corner by taking utmost care of the hoardings 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 maintain cleanliness on the roof of the building and thus the five to six workers are eking out their l livelihood From the income derived upon it. Respondent No.2 had been collecting the advertisement hoarding charges/fee from time to time and issuing acknowledgment, while so, the petitioners were shocked to see the impugned notice dated 17.06.2023 issued by Secunderabad Cantonment Board, through WhatsApp to the petitioner. Hence the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The impugned notice vide Lr.No.SCB,/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2O23/L234 dated 17.O6.2023 issued by the 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. sl. No. Location oF the Hoarding Structure No. of Hoarding Structures 1 P.No.20, G.V.Reddy Complex, Opp: Alwal Raithu Bazar, Secunderabad. 01 No. 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. t, I I 4 3. Therefore, you are hereby directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th 1une,2023, failing which action will be taken by way of levying penalty 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 Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: \"[ 15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad 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 shall be made of environmental frrendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees. Resolution l The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. In this regard, the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, aFter examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that 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 ->.: 6 was pended for two reasons and now both have been addressed. After the detailed discussion, the Board resolved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same from O1.11.2022.\" 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday' the lOth day of May, 2023 at 110O hours, reads as under: \"[13] fo consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt.15.10.2014 as per the rates oF the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19.10.2020. Further, it is to inForm that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby resrdents and comm uters during heavy rains. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.04.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Canton ment. 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 .l Boa rd Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a IJ 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 pu blic. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth )une, 2O23, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2O22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.04.2020 clause 2,b) reads as under: \"b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround level and have com Dletedt hetr a llott ed term shall he removed immediatelv bv GHMc. Those advertisement elements which have an onootno allotment oeriod shall be removed immediatelv after com Dletion of the ttme De od. Further if anv adverti ement f element is removed for whateve r reason, no shiftinq Dermtssron shall be accorded and the AIN ca n ce Iled. \" automaticallv shall be 9 L The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2005 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"( 17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as io secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enclosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.\" 9. Counter affidavit fited by the 2nd Respondent, in oarticular, Paras 7. 9. 10 and 11, reads as under: \"7. I humbly submit that, as a reply to the allegations in Para No.5 of the Affidavit, with regard to collectaon of the hoarding charges/fee from time to time from the Petitioners, the Board is empowered to collect such license fee as per Seciion 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 Applrcation for erection of advertisement elements below 15 Feet from the ground level and the same will be considered and the left + t0 over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted. Therefore, for mere payment of llcense fee of hoardings Vvill not create any right to the Petitioners to prevent the Board from issuing the impugned Notice to remove the rooftop h oa rd ings. 9. I humbly submit that, 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, investment, 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 rmpugned Notice/Order without following due process of law or giving an opportunity to submit their objections. Such contention is factually not correct and misleading, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned N otrce weTe clea rly mentioned and also qave an oDDortunitv and breath i no time to remove hoardinqs bv oivinq a Public Notice wherebvlnore than a week's time has been qranted , and bv virtue of the imouoned Notice after demolition of the hoardinos, the Board has no intention to close the business of the Petitioners and thev can verv well restart the business bv re-erectinq the hoardinq structures below 15 feet from the oround Ievel after obtaininq reouisite sanction from the Board. 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 ll impugned in the Writ Petition was issued to remove the rooFtop hoarding structure on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings; and as a policy decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re-erect their hoardings below I5 feet from ground level, as is permissible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC, as detailed supra. 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 Board . 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 Cantonment Board as a proper and necessary party, 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 10.O5.2023, and non-joinder of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board as a proper and necessary party, the Petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief questioning the impugned Notice issued by the t2 znd Respondent, which was issued pursuant to the Resolution passed by the Board.\" 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16613 of 2023 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder, RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief 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, require the owner/ or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may requtre him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same rn 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 sa me. 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 or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the person for whom it rs rntended; 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 tenderrnq 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 requisitron is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, lessee or occupier therein, and the service thereof shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be effected either- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the owner, lessee or occupier, or, if there are more owners, lessees, or occupiers than one to any one of them; or (b) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be found, by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to the authorised agent, if any, of any such owner, lessee or occupier, or to an adult member or servant of the family of any such owner, lessee, occupier, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or Iand to wh ich it re la tes. (3) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be served is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners mainly puts forth the following submissions: l:l (i) That the impugned notice is in violation of the ( ii) (iii) principles of natural justice, It is without j u risd iction, It is in violation of statutory procedure laid under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, That the respondent - Cantonment Board (iv) d own had the adopted a pick and choose policy and issued notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissrons 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 affidavit puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board 72.06.2023 has published a Public Notice on in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicle t5 (ii) ( iii) (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapcrs, whereby the owners of rhe respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which action would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which the advertisement hoardtngs 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 vrde G.O.Ms.No 6B dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of Tevenue 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 hoardtngs, keeping in view of the saFety of the public. \"1.2/-. i6 (iv) The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds _ One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf oF the Respondent _ Cantonment Board placed reliance on the ludgment dated 77.01.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 al 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firsfly - 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 movemenI of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of t7 environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees The pe.nalties to be imposed are as follows: Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day Rs.50,000/- Per Day Rs.50,000/- Per Day Rs.10,000/ per violation Rs.10,000/- per violation Rs.1,000/ for each wall wfltin Rs.2 000/- for each oster Rs.5,000/- for each banner & Cutout t4. A bare perusal of the G.o.lv1s.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from ave comDleted thelr SI. No. VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) 1 Rs.50,000/ Per Day Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Erection of Unauthorized Advertrsement element below 15 feet in height from ground Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in 2 3 above 15 feet in hei ht from round level level Advertrsement without ermtsston 4 Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding 15olo Frontaqe of the building Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 5 Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Advertrsinq Devices Rs.10,000/- Per Day 6 Operating an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stability Certificate 7 Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle B Use of illu minated Advertisements more then allowed limit 9 with b rig htness Wall Writings 10 Wall Poste rs 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs qround level and h allotted term shall l8 be removed im mediatel b GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an onqoin q allotment period shall be removed immediatelv after completion of t time perlod. G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from qround level and also for regulating the existing advertisement e cments below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. 15. The plea of the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board that the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 was passed inconsonance with G,O.Ms.No.68 of GHMC and the Board has decided to remove all rooFtop hoarding structures of the Petitioners and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioners intend to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 Feet trom 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.lt4s.No.68 dated 20.O4.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in I (.) G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2O2O, 2.b) which clearly states that a d ve rtisem e n lements whi h are a lread exrS tn on the oround on the buildinos exceedinq 15 feet from qround level and have com oleted th ir allotted terms shall be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement elements which have an onqoino allotment oeriod shall be removed immediatelv after com oletion of the time oe riod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoino 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 appeaflng on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been followed. Eecause 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 20 the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been followed. 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 rndicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardrngs along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or 1-7. A bare perusal of the contents oF the impugned notice before 3Otr' )urte, 2023, failing which action will be taken by way of levying penalty and as per the provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006 very clearly indicates that the mandatory procedure under Sections 297 and 318 of the Cantonments Act has not been followed. It is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.16337 of 2023 as under: \" Notice before admission. Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment, takes notice for respondent No.2. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the public notice, dated 72.06.2023, issued by respondent No.2, ll requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and further it is 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 wriI petition is tiled. 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.O6,2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on ll .07.2023 for filing counter-affidavit. Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.O6.2023. However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take dtrY, appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submission of the learned counsel Sri K'R. Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Cantonment Board recorded in the order dated 27.06.2023 *4* )) passed in W. P. No, 76337 of 2023 clearly indicates that the assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 72.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices and Following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed. as borne on record. L9. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated lL.Ol.2O23 passed in W.p.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. in this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public good, satety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in im pos in g the restrictio n s. \" 23 This Court is not makinq anv observations in so far as issuance of the said G.O., is concerned i,e., G.O.Ms.No.58 dated 2O.O4.2O2O nor it is the subiect issue in the oresent writ Detition. Since, there is no challenqe to G.O.Ms. No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O in the Dresent writ petition. The issue in the Dresent case is clear violation of the standard Drocedure laid down in the Secunderabad Cantonment Act Dertainin to Sections 287 and 318 and o clear violat on of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b). 20. This Court ooines that there is clear violation of Ddnciples of natural iustice in the present case. This Court is of the firm opinion that the petitioners ouqht to have been put on notice Drior to issuinq the present impuqned Memo dated 3O.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd respondent and Drior to passinq the imDuqned order dated 30.10.2015 bv the 2nd respondent in all fairness and admittedlv as botne on record, the oetitioners have not been heard prior to oassino of the orders impuqoqd and therefore, the orders impuqned are in clear violation of audi alteram pa rtem rule. 21. This Court oprnes that the Secunderab ad Cantonment Board is an Authoritv to determine the ouestions effectino riqhts of subiects has d to act utv iudiciall vandR sDondent Cantonmen t Board ca n not decide aqainst the riqhts of the petitioner without hearinq the oe tioner or qivinq an oopo rtu n itv to the Detitioner to ti reDresent his or her case i the manner known to law. This Court is of the firm ooinion that the impuq ned notice ts a final order which has been oassed admittedlv with o ut orovid lno an oDDortunitv of hearino to he oetitioner and which even accordino to the learned counsel aooearinq on behalf of the resDondent is contrar to the standard of th Cantonment Act 2006. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 in \"UMANATH pANDEy & OTHERS v, STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANOTHER,, at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para 1O: The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi_ judicial body embarks on determining disputes r dure laid down un r Section and 3 25 between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and 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 notace of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case bEfore any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 12t5, 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 a, & l(, 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. ludicial treatment has added light and luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protectaon of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, q uasi-jud icial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights, These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice\". 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS\" at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application 4q constitute an important facet of ;^ r ' r-* 4 27 procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach oF natural justice implicates a violation of Article 1a: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretatron given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result oF State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 14, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not' coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with t I :3 the duty of deciding a matter. In such principles of natural justice require that a case, the it m ust decrde such matter fairly and impartially.' 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court repo rted tn (1981) l Supreme Court Cases 664 in \"SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA\", the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J. speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D,A Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p, 589, para 44) observed as under: \"44.In short, the general principle - as dlstinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior heanng but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authorrty involves civil t9 consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory Features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this ruie of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, 1., the core of it must, however, remain/ namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty p u blic relations exercise.\" 25. In \"MANGILAL v. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2004) 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 observe the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are affected: (SCC pp.453-54, para 10) observed as under: i0 \" 10. Even if a statute is silent and there are no positive words in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothing wrong in spelling out the need to hear the parties whose rights and interest are likely to be affected by the orders that may be passed, and making it a requirement to follow a fair procedure before taking a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural taws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of naturat justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute ll or necessary intendment.,. Its aim is to secure justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Principles of natural justice do not supplant the law, but supplement it. These rules operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They are a means to an end and not an end in themselves.\" 26. In \"CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\", reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in \"DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 600, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the equality clause in Article L4. Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi alteram partem is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. This Court opines that administrative proceedings which entail significant civil consequences must be read consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the requirement of Article 14. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OOB) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was l called upon to dc. dc whcther an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any directicn could be issued under Section 142(2-A) oF the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts oF the assessee. This Court held justrce ts to be read rnto the sard provrsions 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 2A, In ..KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE oF J,P.-, reported tn (2011) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual which allowed the imposition of a penalty for breach of the conditions of a bond without expressly tssuing a show-cause notice. D.K.lain, l. speakjng on behalf of the two-ludge Bench held that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) is made. The Court held that the rule would be open to challenge for berng .vjolative of Article 14 of the Constitution unless the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being hea rd. \" 32- In our view, therefore, if the 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 undcr 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, 2OO6 had not been adhered to by the 2\"d respondent. Itiss ttled law when a statute describes or outres a thino to be done in Darticular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs, Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2Ot7) SCC Ontine Hyd 426). B) The Division Bench of Apex Court in its iudqment dated 04.1O.2O21 in Su Dertech Ltd.. Vs. Eme ra ld Court 0wner Resident Welfare Associa tion and Ors., reported in 2O21 SCC Online SC 3422, referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap37Z and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The & Ors., Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad reported in AIR 1960 SC gO1 at para 13 observed as under: \"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 a and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all and other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This Court too, as adopted this maxim. This rule provides that an expressly laid down mode of doing something necessarily implies a prohibition on doing it in any other way. .t5 30, Takino into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. and in view of the law laid n the A ex Co r in the va ri ud ments s ( referred to and extracted above) and in the lioht of discussion as arrived at as above, the Writ Petition is allowed as praved for. The respondent No.2 is directed not to take anv further action Dursuant to the impuqned notice vide Lr. No.SCB/ RS/ Rooftop Hoardinq s / 2023 / L234 dated 17.6.2023. However, it is clearlv observed that this order will not come in the wav of the 2nd resoondent - Cantonment Board to take anv aDDroDriate action in accordance to law as oer the Drovisions of Cantonm ent Act, 2006 bv followinq the standard DTocedure oerta in inq to notice as orovided under Secti ons 297 and 318 of the w V f there shall be o as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall st .c SEKHAR o ---sD/- ANDRA //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGIST SECTION OFFICER To, il:{{eq$#J#''a' Ministry or Derense Room No 305' B-wing riff -#- Two CD CoPies' BSK BS 1. 2. J. 4. q 6 6. Cantonment A HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 OR : i l-ia S lil r ,/' {' ) ) -) '. Dr L - (i, U 1 tL:r lru t (cL, .' tt ORDER WP.No.16384 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS . D.1 .-,r. , /' T I i "