Srinivas Chary Sangem V. The Union of India

WP/17011/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Srinivas Chary Sangem against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Union of India, challenging the legality of a public notice issued for the removal of rooftop hoardings on safety grounds. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without following due process, specifically without adhering to the principles of natural justice and the statutory procedures required under the Cantonment Act, 2006. The court examined the procedures followed by the Cantonment Board in issuing the notice and found them lacking, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686295 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another, STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS, SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA, MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI, DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETLURU
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 226; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ATHYDERABAD (SPecial Original Jurisdiction) I/ONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE l32s2l ...RESPONDENTS PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO:170'11 QF 2023 Between: AND 1 2. IANO:1O F 2023 Serial No. Location of the Hoard ing Structure Snnivas Chary Sangem, S/o. Late Eshwar Chary Age 32 Yrs Rl/o. 11-5-7216' Saroornagar Hyderabad ...PETITIONER The Union of lndia,Represented by its Secretaiy, For Defence, New Delhi The Secunderabad Cantonment,Board Represented bv its The Chief Executive Officer Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad- 500003. Petition under Articre 226 0f the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances srated in the affidavit rir\"J itr.i\"*iit, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ ,Direction especiarf i; ;\"i;;; of Mandamus decrarinq rhe order passed bv Respondent No i Ort\"i' 12.06.2023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooflop t-ioardinosl2o23,h^1s6 aid n-\"tj rrfoti.\" dt 1t-06-2023bearing No. sc./RS/Rooftop Hoirdin gsr202311272, ,\"-]rrugrr and consequenriarv set asrde rhe operarron of notice aited lz.oai6iii, UctinslRoof top. Pelition under Secti, i n t h e a rrio a v i t ; iJ ;.-,\"#Jn, ii lfi ;\" ilX,,] : ?,, y fll Jl B;,l'.ffJ i:\";i.\"J:,J :S direct the Respondent No 2 not ;-;;;;;=\";,,1 Petitioner on ilre rootlp oi t \" o\"ro* ;;,b;;;\"fl,1ulorro,nn. betonging ro 1 No. oi Structures Hoarding P. No 1s9, Opp Lingswell Building, 2No Tad bundXR oads, Secu nderabad -03 lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: The Chief Executive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 Srinivas Chary Sangem, S/o. Late Eshwar Chary Age 32 Yrs, Occ: Business Rl o. 1 1 -5-l 216,Saroornagar Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT No.1/WRIT PETITIONER The Union of lndia, Ministry of Defence, Represented by its Secretary, Room r.fo. Sbs, B-Wing Sena Bhivan, New Delhi' (Respondent No.2 is not necessary party in this petition) ...RESPONDENTS petition under section 151 cpc praying. that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titeo in supJort'Jrfi\" p\"iitt\"' i1\"^1'on court nrav be pleased to vacate the interim order o5'\"\"ltdoillo)rin w p r'ro 17011 of 2023 in respect of the impugned Public r''\"i'.cl\"*\"i'iircaiozs'and clismrss the Writ Petition' rn InJ ,\"t\"i.Lliilustice under the circumstances of the case cou nse I f or the Petition\"'' 3[i :H?+15{,T S#3-lf^T -E s E Nr I NG Fo R c o u ns e r ro r the Re s po n de nt N o' 1 : ?Sl :$'J,PcH\"f EE,[ruS*o r, * o' o, counse| ror the Respondent No'2: tt ffi [?ltBtHtft I$3;-\" The Court made the following: ORDER 2 ,a>- THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRTT PETITION No. 17011 oF 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, tearned Counsel appearing on behatf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, tearned counsel for the petitaoner on record, Mr.Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behatf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R.Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No,2 - Cantonment Boa rd. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: \"To issue a Writ Direction especially in nature oF Mandamus declaring the paper publication notice dated 12.06.2023 bearrng No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/t156 issued by Respondent No.2 and Regd Notice dated t7.06.2023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/t272 as iilegat and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 72.06.2023 in SCA/RS/RooF top Hoardings/2023/ t 156.,. 3.7 the ti er tn ief Rlo. ll-5-7216' Sa roornaqa r' livelihood The Petitioner in the erected roof top hoarding on the P.No. 159, OPPosite Secunderabad-03' bY all necessarY The Petitioner is carrying advertising under the narne and on business of outdoor style of \"Eshwar Arts\"' and eking out his Hyderabad course of his business had roof top of the Premises of respon a Gene Lingswell Building' Tadbund X Roads' maintaining all safetY standards' by paying rents to the owners of the buildings and also Paid all necessary taxes without any default It is further the case of dent - Secunderabad ral Public Notification in Cantonment Board had issued Deccan Chronicle Ne top hoardings along in view of Public safety present writ Petition ' U D TH E R coRD. the Petitloner that the 2\"' ws Paper dated 12 06'2023 that all the roof with its structures be removed immediately on or before 30'06'2023' Hence the 4. The imPugned Public bearing No'SCB/RS/Roof issued bY the 2nd respondent - Notice dated L2'O6'2O23 Top Hoardings/2o23t1-1.56 Cantonment Board to the reads as under: .PUBLiC NOTICE petitioner, The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings t'\"\"'*'* its structures be removed in view of Public safetY ' Therefore, the advertisernent agencies having their adverasement noaroing structures on the ro-of top of the buildings in Secunoerlbad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30 06'ZOZ:' ngencies and Ownerl of-the building failing to comply witn-notice will be levied with penalty as decided by the board and action will be initiated as per cantonments Act 2006 The owner of building will be personally tiable for any damaqes caused or of life' The owners of the respective advertisement hoa rding structures are responsibility of the owners to ensure are removed by 30tf' June 2023' failing initiated as per Cantonments Act 200 will be liable to pay penalty as decided The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Office of the Cantonment Board' as under: buildings having to noted that it is that the structures which action will be 6 and subsequently by Board.\" 5 Conference Hall, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September' 2(,22 at 15OO hours, in part'cular' the relevant paras' read l \"[1S] fo consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs anO other advertisement eJements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erectiol ro rhe pedestrians but ll\"\"l;..ti,;'ilj IJrffl::::; the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the tasi Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: Authorised space Ba n ners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maxrmum size of 4' x 6, and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. Resolutton: 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 penaltv charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas' r) for erecting of flexis / 6 Shri l. Ramakrishna' Nominated Member' after examining the Governrnent of Telangana GO expressed that the mauer in the GHMG nu, o\"\"n t'\"\"1'\"-o^i::r detailed discussions and atter formation ol .-t:::u\"\"t that proposed these regulatiom' He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undeftaken by the Cantonment Board' Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise for the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC The PCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting' the matter was pended for two reasons and now both have been add ressed ' 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 trofi OL'LL'2022\"' The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of th€ Cantonment Eoard' Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the l0th day of May' 2O23 at 11OO hours, reads as under: 6 \"[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 rs 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 ihe GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dr. 19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavy rains. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.04.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements whrch are at huge heights from ihe ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creatrng havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet trom ground tevet. The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buitdtngs for the year 2O22-23 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 7 removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.l Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri l. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural saFety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a commrttee may be constituted For studying the structural safety. PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view oF the safety of the public. The Board resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 30th June, 2O23, failing which action to be taken agaanst the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2022 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2OO6.,. 8 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4.2020 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 g rguld I and ha m le hei r dte h tl vedimmediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement rem elements which have an onooano allotment Deriod shall be removed immed iatelv after comDletaon of he tim eriod. Further if an v rtise elem nt is removed for whatever reason. no shiftino Dermlsslon shall be accorded and the AIN sh ll be automaticallv cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2OO6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: -( 17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or offensrve trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minlmise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; ( 1B) 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 \" s the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings' 9. I further humbly submit that' the contention of the petitioner is that, the Public Notice issued 'to remove the hoardings without following due process of law' is factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Public Notrce were clearly mentioned and also qave an nit a b a hin me o h rd rt bv vi ue ofa Public Noticewherebv more than a w k's ti e has been ra nte andb virtue of the Notic tm ed Pu li q rss ed r oli of h I further humblY submit that' regarding collection of nd to time from the 9 \"7. hoarding charges/fee from time Petitioner, the Board is emPowered to collect such license fee as Per Section 67 of the Act 2006, as stated above' However, for the reasons exPlained in the Board Resolution dated 10'05.2023 which was Passed in consonance with O.Ms. No' 68 of GHMC' the Board has decided to remove G. all rooftoP hoarding structures of the Petitioner and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal' if the Petitioner is intended to sub t fresh APPlication for ml 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 reinaining period will be adjusted' Therefore, for mere Payment of llcense fee of hoardings Petitioner to Prevent the Board from issuing the impugne d Public Notice calling for will not create anY right to the l0 a n b s ness f h t tio e a re art he bu tne s re-e ur sb t a s he Bo r I o s the n w he ho tn o dt vel a r obtaInlnq uisite sanctton from the Boa rd. The livel refore, there will not be any ihood to the petitioner, as alleged. loss of revenue or 10. I further humbly submit that, the impugned pubtic Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on two counts _ one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one cantonmenr due to ;J\"r:::::;j,:':::'l:\": :J:; decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re erect their hoardinqs below 15 feet from ground level, as ts permissible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.6g of GHMC, as detailed supra. In view of the same, the Writ petitioner ts required to remove the rooftop hoarding structures from his property. 11. i further humbly submit that, a Writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) ViOlation of statutory procedure. rn the present case, the Pet t oner s not ta g anY of these three excePtions' as not uiofut\"O the princip es of natura [he Respondents have ll l Respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits \" lo.Learnedcounselappearingonbehalfofthe petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W'P'No'16613 of 2023 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder' REL VA TPR VI ION Section 297 ol the Cantonment Act' 2OO6' reads as under: alleged as, Secon d lY, erabad Cantonment Board' rePresented by the Chief Executive Officer' had issued the imp u I ned Public Notice having jurisdiction to issue such N otice as Per the Provisions of the Act' as detailed su Pra ' Lastly, the Board has not vrolated anY statutorY Procedu re and ordering to remove rooftop hoardings is followed bY the Board Resolution which was Passed in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20' o4.2O2O of GHMC and accordinqlY the imPUgned Public Notice has been issued to remove rooftoP hoardinqs to safeguard safetY and securitY of the public and also to Prevent shabby look of the Cantonment' grounds, the Petrtioner miserablY failed to establish any Prima facie case to interfere with the impugned Public Notice issued bY the 2nd fl the Secund In vlew of the above stated \" 297 . power to rec rendered =aru._ wheJ:':: -r'll.l:.n., werrs, etc, ro be wa , or anythns ;r';t;::i:;t::t# ::;'r:\":, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, 61, dny bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinous state or, for wt enclosure, a nuisance lnt of sufficient repairs, protection or or dangerous to persons passing by or dweiling or working in the neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may, require the owner/ or part_ owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to encrose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if the danger is, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, imminent, he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: 318. Service of notace, 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 intended; or (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order Or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if rvithin the by post, to the person for whom it is l3 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 ownerr lessee or occupier of any building or land' it shall not be necessary tonametheowner,lesseeoroccupiertherein,andthe 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' iftherearemoreowners,lessees,oroccupiersthanoneto any one of them; or (b) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be fbund' 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 ownerf lessee, occupier' or by causing it to be aFflxed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which it relates. (3) When the person on whom a notice' order or requisition is to be served is a minor' service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor'\" 11. Learned counsel aPPearlng on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: I.l (i) (iv) That the adopted a notices. Learned counsel for submissions put forth above. be allowed as prayed for That the impugned public Notice is in violation ot the principles oF natural jusiice, It is without j urisd iction, It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (ii) ( iii) respondent - Cantonment Board pick and choose policy and issued had the the petitioners placing on the prayed that the writ petition should 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 has pubtished a public Notice on 72.06.2023 in Shakshi (relugu), Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Mrlap (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 structures are removed by 30.06.2023, failing which action would be initiated as per the Act, 2006. (ii) Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Adve tisements Agencles and owners of the t5 buildings on which the structures are erected to 30.06.2023. The issue rega rding 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.6g 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 rcvenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along wrth the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which actron would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. The Cantonment Board is hoarding structures u nder removed the rooftop 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. advertisement hoardings remove the same before ( iii) (iv) r6 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos 36328 of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed, DISCUSSION AND CONCLU ION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office ol the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29\"' day ol September, 2022 at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firstly - to consider imposltion 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 mcvement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic' Further,thebannersandcutouthoardingsshallbemadeoF environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the Poles and Trees' The penalties to be imposed are as follows: t,1 sl. No, VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement eiement Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day above 15 feet in hei from round leve 1 tht- 2 2 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.50,000/- Per Day below 15 feet in hei ht from round level Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Rs.50,000/- Per Day Advertisement withouf ermtsston Rs.100/- Per 5q.ftl\", ouy l 4 5 6 Size of the Advertisement/Na me board exceeding Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Operatrng an Advertisement element without valid 1 5 o/o Frontage of the bujlding Rs.10,000/- Per Day Advertisin LDevrces Rs.50,000/- Per Day 9!rue!!t'a! Sta! i I ity Celtificate Advertisement on movrng vehicle where the Rs. 10,000/- per violation I advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projectron on the body of the 7 ve h icle Use of illuminated Ad 8 9 Wall Writings more then alloweq limit 10 Wall Posters 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs vertisements with brightness Rs.10,000/- per v iolatron Rs.1,000/- for each wall writin Rs.2,000/- for eaqh posler l Rs.5,000/- for each ba n ner &Cutout L4. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround level and have comp leted their allotted term shall be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisernent elements which have an onq ino allotment oeriod shall be er comDletion of the time oeriod. removed immediatelv aft l l r8 G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidetines from granting new permission for advertisement erements berow 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements 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 from the ground level and the same would be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period wiil be adjusted is untenabre in view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.6g dated ZO.O4.2O2O on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearty srates that those dve em n whi h ar rea exr tn th ro do ildi s cee n 1 fee from q rou nd t9 level and have comoleted their allotted terms shall be re oved immediatelv bv GHMC. Those adverti ment elements which have an ono inq allotment Deriod s all be removed immediatelv after comDletion of the trme eriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoino allotment 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 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been foilowed. l0 L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned Public Notice dated 12.06.2023 clearly indicates that it is a final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rooFtop hoarding structure on or before 30ti' June, )023, 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 Sectlons 29f 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.1633l of 2023 as under: \" Notice before admrssion. Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, Iearned 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 12.06.2023, issued by respondent No.2, requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and further it is ll 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 penatty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is filed. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.06 .2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on ll .O7.2023 for filin g 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 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 passed in W.P.No.1633-/ ol 2023 ctearly indicates that the assurance of the learned counsel before the Court had not been adhered to and that unless and untii individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 12.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Sectlon 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on record. 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.O1.2O23 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 responCent and the reasons for imposing restrictlons on advertiscment use ts considering the public safety, road safety, aesthcttc 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, safety and the aesthetics of the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposing the restrictions. \" This Court is not makinq nv observations in so far as lssuance oft he said G.O., is concerned i.e.. G.O Ms.No 8 dated 2O.04.2020 nor it s the sub 5 le ss ue in the Dresent writ petition. Since, there is no challenoe o G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O in the resent writ Detition. The issue in the Df sent case is clear violation of a rocedu laid d wn In Cantonment Act Dertaanino Sections 287 and 318 and clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b). 2o This Court ooines that there is cl r violation of rtnct les of natur is of the firm sen ca T opinion that the oetitioners ouqht to have been out on notace Drior to issuino the oresent imDuqned oda ed 3O.1O.2O15 bv the 2nd resD()ndent and orior Mem t t^n assrn the im .t un n atl ardas Aala d 30.10.2o L E hrr fha 2\"d resoondent in all falrness and admitted!v as borne on record, the oetitioners have not been heard praor to rrassinq of the orders imouon ed and therefore, the orders imouoned are in clear violation of au , alteram Dartem ru le. 2L. This Court ooines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board is an Authoritv to determine the ouest ons effectano riohts of subiects has dutv to act iudicially and Respondent - Cantonmellt Board cannot h rt f h t ut hearin the oetitioner or qivino an oooortunitv to the petitioner to represent his or her case in the manner known to law. This Court ts oft he rm oDtnion that hetm nuo ned ot t n lae is a final order which has been passed admittedlv without providinq an oDDortunitv of hearinq to the Detitioner and which even accordmqto the learned counsel apDearinq on behalf of the respondent is contrary to the standard prgcqdure laiel down under S-ection 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act 2006. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 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 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 25 determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time. When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 12L5, 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 dad not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?\" Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching its content. Judicial treatment has added light and 26 luminosity to the concept, like polishing of a diamond. Para 11 : \"Principles of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authoraty from doing injustice\". 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2O23) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS\" at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application and constitute an important facet of procedural propriety envisaged under Article 14. The rule of audi alteram partem is recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulstranl Patel has categorically held that violation of the prrncrples of natural justice is a violation of Article 14 27 The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 1a: (SCC p.476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is thc samc 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 reposttory 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, authot ity or body of men, not coming within the clefinition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. ln such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and rmpartially.\" 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in 'SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA\", the S issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements ol 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, l.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D'A' Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p' 689, para 44 ) observed as under: \"44. In short, the general principle - as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisronal staqe. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequcnces 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 excludrng 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 )9 for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands'. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications, But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, 1., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearrng must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. \" 25. In \"MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reoorted in (2OO4) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natura! 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: \" 70. Even if a statute is silent and there are no Dositive words in the ct or the Rules made thereunder, there could be nothino wrono in soellino out the need to hear the DArt,,es ose riohts and interest are likelv to be affected bv the orders that mav be oas ed. and makino it a re uirement to follow a fair rocedure before takin e decision D nl ss trre statute rovides The principles i(r of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrarY. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a iudicial or guasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve requirements of natural iustice 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 principte. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of natural justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected. The application of natural iustice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessary intendment. Its aim is to secure iustice or to Drevent miscarriaqe of iustice. Princioles of natural iustice do not suDDlant the law, but suoolement it. These rules operate onlv in areas not covered bv anv law validl made. Thev are a means nenda n tanen emsel 26. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI-, reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two_Judge Bench of this Court held that the rute oJ audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarty, 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 equalaty 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 proceedrngs which entail significant civil consequences must be read consistent with the principle of natural justice to meet the requirement of Article 74. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT,,, reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-ludge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to afl assessee before any direction could be issued under Section 742(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Court heid that since the exercise of power under Sectron 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the *4* assessee, the requirements of observing the prlnciples of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions' Za. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v' STATE OF U'P'\"' reported in (2011) 13 SCC Page 733' wherein it is held that: '.theCouddealtWithachallengetothevalidityofRule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual which allowed the imposition of a penalty for breach of the conditlons of a opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) ts made' The Court he d that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article bond without exPresslY D.K.lain, J. sPeaking on held that a show-ca use a show- cause notice opportunitY of hearing issuing a show-cause notice' behalf of the two-lucige Bench notice should be issur:d and an require mcnt of an into it. The Cou rt 14 of the Constitution unless the opportunitY to show cause is read observed: (SCC P 743, Paras 30 & 32) \"30. 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 iustace, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature' scope and consequences of directionundersub-rule(7)ofRule633oftheExcise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that should be should be issued and an afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the sa'd Rule does not contain 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 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 2nd respondent' rta settl law w enas tute d scrabes or reoutres ne a ular m nner I sho e in that manner or not at a ll. A) (M.Shankara Reddy vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2O17) SCC Online Hvd 426)' B) Div n nch A Co tn 4.10 2o21 in Su ech d Emer Court Owner Resident W fare so a rs., m reported in 2O21 SCC Online SC 3422, referring to Taylor Vs. Taytor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs' King Emperor rePorted in (1936) L.R.63 Ind AP372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs' The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors', reported in AIR 1960 SC 801 at para 13 observed as u nder: \"tt 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 att 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. 30, Takinq into consideration the aforesaid facts and ctrcum stances of the case, and in view of the la laid down bv the ADex Court in the vario s Judome ts as (referred to and extracted above) an in the Iioht of di sion as arrived at as above, the Writ Petition is allowed as Dra ed for. The resoondent No.2 is directed not t5 i.'r flka -ariv ttrrfha ursuant to the i rnnrrrrnad Drrhl r aat n lt Notice videNo.SCB/RS/ ooftooHoa rd inos I 2023 I L LSG dated 12.6.2O23. However, it is clearly observed that this order wall not come in the av of the 2nd resoondent Cantonment Board to take anv aDDroDriate action in accordance to law as per the provisions of Cantonment Act. 2OO6 bv followinq the standard orocedure oertainino tice as r d r 2 7 f h 1 Cantonment Act, 20O6. However, there shall be no order Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGIS R //TRUE COPY// sEcTto OFFICER To, 1. The Secretary, 2. The Chief Exec Patel Road, Co 3. One CC to SRt 4. One CC to SRt loPUCl 5. One CC to SRt tNDtA) [oPUCl 6. Two CD Copies BN The Union of lndia, For Defence, New Delhi. utive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonrnent Board. Sardar urt Compound. Secunderabad-500003. CHETLURU SREENTVAS, Advocate tOpUCt K.R, KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CArurOriN Crur BOARD GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOL|C|TOR GENERAL oF GJP as to costs. HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 ORDER WP.No.17O11 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS oF 1HE S r4r€ 19 APB 204 z F + + .) ,.) 1.) ll I ii G' Dt.' PAT tl c s q 9.0 ,L, w "