Swetha Ads V. The Union of India

WP/16870/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Swetha Ads, an outdoor advertising agency, challenging a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) directing the removal of rooftop hoardings for public safety reasons. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The SCB defended its action based on safety concerns and adherence to a government order regulating advertisement elements above 15 feet. The court examined the procedures followed by the SCB in issuing the notice and found them lacking, leading to the decision to allow the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 686283 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Mandamus; Natural Justice; Public Safety; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA wRIT PETITION NO: 16870 OF 2023 132521 ...PETITIONER Between: AND 1 2 Swetha Ads, Re age 43 Yrs Plo 500039 pBv tNo it Managing Partner R. Bhargavi, W/o: R. Vinod Kumar 1A, lnd-uslrial Development- area, Uppal, Hyderabad- The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence New Delhi, The Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Represented by its The Chief Executive Officer Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad- 500003. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ, Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No 2 dated 12. 06. 2023 bearing No' SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/20 23t1156 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12. 06. 2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased This Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioner on the roof top of the below mentioned premrses lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: The Chief Executive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonrnent Board, Court Compound, S.P. Road, Secunderabad- 500003- ...PETITIONER'RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1. Swetha Ads, Rep By it Managing Partner R. Bhargavi, W/o: R Kumar age 43 Yrs Plot No 1A, lndustrial Development area, Hyderabad- 500039 Vinod Uppal, ...RESPONDENT No.'lMIR|T PETITIONER 2. The Unron of lndia, tvlinistry of Defence, Represented by its Secretary, Room No-305, B.Wing Sena Bhava, Defence New Delhi, ...RESPONDENT/IRESPONDENT NO.,I (R-2 not necessary party this petition) Petitron under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the Interim Order dated 03.07.2023 in WP No.16870 of 2023 in respect of the impugned Public Notice dated 12.06.2023 and dismiss the, Writ Petition, in the interest of justice under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKAR REDDY, REPRE:SENTING FOR SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SoLICITOR GENERAI- oF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION No. 16870 OF 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, !earned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, and Mr.K.R,Koteshwar Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Cantonment Board. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows: \"To issue a Writ Direction especially in nature of Mandamus declaring the Paper Publication notice dated 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2023/LL56 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoa rdin gsl2023 / t 156.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor advertising under the name and style of \"Swetha Ads, R/o. Plot ...r 2 o No. 14, Industrial Development Area, Uppal, llyderabad_500039 and eking out her livelihood. The petitioner in the course of her business had erected roof top hoardings on the roof top of the premises i.e. 1) #63, ICRISAT Colony, Brig Syed Rd, Babuji Nagar, Secunderbad-11, 2) H.No.4, beside police Station Karkhana, Secunderabad, 3) 2t-3, FisherpJra, JBS, picket, Secunderabad, 4) Sy.No. 7 lpart, Chinna Thot(atta, Bowenpally, Secunderabad, 5) 290, Lal Bazar, Tirmulgherry, Secunderabad and 6) 3-10-35/A, Tirmulgherry (V), Secunderabad by maintaining all safety standards, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes without any defaurt. It is further the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent - secunderabad cantonment Board had issued a General public Notification in Deccan Chronicle News Paper dated 12.06.2023 that all the roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed immediately in view of public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. PE USED TH E RECORD. 4. The impugned public Notice dated tZ.O6.2O2g bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardinrgs/2O2g/tLS6 I I 3 issued by the 2nd respondent - Cantonment Board to the petitioner, reads as under: \"PUBLIC NOTICE The Secunderabad cantonment board has resolved that all roof top hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety. Therefore, the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the roof top of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are hereby directed to remove the advertisement hoarding structures before 30.06.2023, Agencies and Owners of the building failing to comply with notice will be levied with penalty as decided by the board and action will be initiated as per cantonments Act 2006. The owner of building will be personally liable for any damages caused or of life. The owners of the respective buildings having advertisement hoarding structures are to noted that it is responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 30th )une2O23, failing which action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penalty as decided by Board.\" 5. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 4 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: \"[15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writirg, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to rr:strict 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 rosolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two ssues: i) Authorised space for erectin(J of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4,x 6,and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly rraterial. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Boerrd that this matter was placed in last meeting ancl pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis/Banners ii) Reduction of penatty charges. In 5 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 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 addressed. After the detaited 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, 6 Secunderabad on .Wednesday, the loth day of May,2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"[13] To consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertisement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being c:ollected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt.15.10.21014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19. 10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavy ra ins. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.20.04.2020 wherein it has bc.en mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a nurnber of times, although certified as stable, thereby crr3ating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issLred 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/-. 7 Therefore, keepang in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.1 Crore revenue per annum to the Board, however in view of safety of the public the hoardings should be removed. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member informed the Board that the rooftop hoardings be considered where a structural safety report is submitted by the owners of the houses, and he said that a committee may be constituted for studying the structural saFety. PCB stated that human life is more important than the revenue being generated, hence, the Board may direct the agencies to remove the hoardings in view of the safety of the public. The Board resolved that al! the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 3oth June, 2023, faiting which action to be taken against the violators as per 8 the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.Zg.Og.2O22 and as per provisions of Cantonments ,Act, 2006.,, 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.6g dated ZO.O4.2O2O clause 2.b) reads as under: -b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted. Those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from oround h et etr te m hall r v m c. men elements which have an onqorno llotm nt oe all ov tm dia a co oletio e e n F h r ardv rtise ent ts ov for h er on s in DE mission sh !l be acco edand thE ATN shall be au maticallv ncell iod of 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonmclnt Act, 2006 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"(17) the control and sUpervision of places where dangerous or offensive trades are carried on so as to secure cleanliness therein or to minimise any injurious, offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enc:losure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure <>f whatsoever 9 material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.\" 9. Counter affidavit filed bv the 2nd resoondent, in a r P ra 7 1O and rea \"7. I further humbly submit that, regarding collection of hoarding charges/fee from time to time from the Petitioner, the Board is empowered to collect such license fee as per Section 67 of the Act 2006, as stated above. However, for the reasons explained in the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms. No. 68 of GHMC, the Board has decided to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the Petitioner and others located in the Cantonment area and after its removal, if the Petitioner is intended to submit fresh Application for erection of advertisement elements below 15 feet from the ground level and the same will be considered and the left over license fee for the remaining period will be adjusted. Therefore, for mere payment of license fee of hoardings will not create any right to the Petitioner to prevent the Board from issuing the impugned Public Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardings. 9. I further humbly submit that, the contention of the petitioner is that, the Public Notice issued to remove the hoardings without following due process of law, is factually not correct, as the grounds for issuance of the impugned Public Notice were clearly mentioned and also qave in I opoortunitv and breathinq time to remove hoardinos 10 bv virt eof aPublic Notice wherebv mor thana e s n h ar h en n a rt of e iti of on s u c tc SU o h n h s h IO r can verv well re rt the bus ness bv re-e ecti qt he hoardinq c s Io tf m r nd level after o !ni r ui te n on B rd. Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged. stn 10. I further humbly submit that, the Notice was issued to remove the irnpugned Public rooftop hoarding structures on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to l)revent shabby look to the Cantonmerlt due to such hoardings; and as a policy decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however the,7 may re_erect their hoardings below 15 feet from grourrd level, as is permissible in GHMC area, and the present l Jotice is issued in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.6B of GHMC, as detailed supra. In view of the same, the Writ petitiorrer is required to remove the property. rooftop hoarding structures from his 11. I further humbly submit that, a W-it 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) 11 violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner is not falllng in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged ds, as subseouent to Board's Resolution, the imouqned Public Notice has been issued callinq upon the attention of the owners of build tnos where roofto D hoard lnd structures have been erected so as the Advt. Aoencies and oave sufficient time to remove the rooftoo hoardinos, Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by the Chief Executive Officer, had issued the impugned Public Notice having jurisdiction to issue such Notice as per the provisions of the Act, as detailed supra. Lastly, the Board has not violated any statutory procedure and ordering to remove rooftop hoardings is followed by the Board Resolution which was passed in consonance with G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 of GHMC and accordingly the impugned Public Notice has been issued to remove rooftop hoardings to safeguard safety and security of the public and also to prevent shabby look of the Cantonment. In view of the above stated grounds, the Petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case to interfere with the impugned Public Notice issued by the 2nd Respondent and the Writ Petition is devoid of any merits.\" 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner adopted the reply affidavit in W.P.No.16513 of 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. t2 RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, well:;, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment erny 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 tr: be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if thr: danger is, in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, imminent, he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinkr; necessary to avert the same. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc._ (1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder:;hall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented_ (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order cr requisition, or sending it intended; or by post, to the person for whom it is 13 (b) if such person cannot be found, by affixing the notice order or requisition on some conspicuous part of his last known place of abode or business, if within the cantonment, or by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to some adult member or servant or his family, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the buildings or land, if any, to which it relates. (2) When any such notice, order or requisition ls required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, lessee or occupier therein, and the service thereof shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be effected either- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the owner, lessee or occupier, or, if there are more owners, lessees, or occupiers than one to any one of them; or (b) if no such owner, lessee or occupier can be found. by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition to the authorised agent, if any, of any such owner, lessee or occupier, or to an adult member or servant of the family of any such owner, lessee, occupier, or by causing it to be affixed on some conspicuous part of the building or land to which it relates. (3) When the person on whom a notice, order or requisition is to be serVed is a minor, service upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.\" L4 11. Learned counsel appearing on br:hatf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions: (i) That the impugned public Notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice, (ii) It is without jurisdiction, (iii) It is in violation of statutory procerlure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board had adopted a pick and choose policy and issued the notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. L2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2\"d Respondent - Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit puts forth the following submissions:r (i) The Board has published a public Notice on t2.06.2023 in Shakshi (Telugu), Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers, whereby the owners of the respective buildings having advertisement .hoarding structures are to be noted that it is the responsibility of the owners to ensure that the structures are removed by 15 ( ii) ( iii) ( iv) 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 hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023. The issue regarding regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect of the safety and security of the residence was discussed at length in the Board Meeting held on 10.05.2023 and in the said Board Meeting by taking into consideration of the New Advertisement Policy of Government of Telangana issued vide G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds - One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other 16 one is to prevent shabby look to the (:antonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy der:ision. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent _ Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.p.Nos.3632g of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissr:d. DISCUS ION AN D CONCLUSION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at lhe Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Sec:rnderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 ztt 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues - Firstty _ to consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, which however, is not the subject issue in the present wr t petition, and Secondly - the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4,x 6,and will be put in a mar,ner that does not obstruct movement of traffic as well as visibility of traffic. Further, the banners and cut out hoardings shall be made of environmental friendly material and no banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as follows: 77 sl. No. VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) 1 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element above 15 feet in hei ht from round level Rs.1,00,000/- Per DaY 2 Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element below 15 feet in hei ht from round level Rs.50,000/- Per Day 3 Use of flashing lights/Non static illumination in Advertisement without ermtsston Rs.50,000/- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding 157o Fronta e of the buildin Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per DaY 5 Use of Advertisin Moving, rotating or variable message Devices Rs.10,000/- Per Day 6 Operatlng an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stabili Certificate Rs.50,000/- Per DaY 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 Rs.10,000/- per violation 8 Use of illuminated Advertisements with more then allowed limit brightness Rs.10,000/- per violation 9 Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writin 10 Wall Posters Rs.2 000/- for each oster 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner &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 adveftisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround Ieve! and have mDleted their all d term shall re am b MC. adve me elements whic have an onootnq allotment oeriod sh ll be m V di r no tm erto 18 G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines 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 llround 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 decide,J to remove all rooftop hoarding structures of the petitioners and others rocated 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 licenst: fee for the remaining period wiil be adjusted is untenabre in view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.6B dated 20.04.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 hacl been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions al; indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearty states that those adVErtisement elementswhich are read istinq yex itdi o nd n e s x d al 5 feet from 19 n n d v h tr G MC. rti r lm le whi v ol lt e removed im ediatelv after comoletion of the time Deriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did not consider the issue of the 'onqoino altotment period' (as stated in the counter affidavit at para 7). 16. A bare perusal of Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 clearly indicates a standard procedure to be followed by the Cantonment Board pertaining to'issuance of notice' and Section 318 deals with 'service of notice'. In the present case admittedly as borne on record and even as admitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, the procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act' 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed' Because even in the counter affidavit filed by 2nd respondent at Para 11 it is specifically stated that a Public Notice had been issued and admittedly as borne on record the mandatory procedure under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act' 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed' h 20 17. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated 12.06.2023 crearry indicates that it is a finar 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 satety. Therefore, the petitioners are directed to remove the rcoftop hoarding structure on or before 30th June, 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 ur,der: \"Notice before admission. Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent I{o.1. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment, takes notice frtr 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 e re directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 arrd further it is ZL also indicated that if the same is not done before the said date, action will be initiated as per the Cantonments Act, 2006 and they were liable to pay penalty as decided by the-Board. Aggrieved by the said public notice, the present writ petition is filed. Sri K. .Koteswar ao. learned Standinq C unsel for resoondent No.2-Board submitted that unless ndu ividu ices ue e V owners of the advertisement hoardinos. no further cti ld be n sol in he 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 12.06.2023. However, this order will not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take itrY, 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.16337 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 22 to respective owners oF the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated L2.06.2023 'exercise of issuing individuar notices and foilowing the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followt:d, as borne on record. 19. ft is true that this Court in its Judlgment dated 11.OL.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 int{_.ntion of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appoarance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions thitt are imposed by the respondents on the height, distanc:e and all the aspects are only to achieve the object ol, 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.an observat ons inso far s u eof h a! G d e G.O.Ms.No.68 date 04.2o20 nor rtist he s;ubiecti I th es wr d 20. ti c th n ch I ssue 23 M .No.68 4.2020 nt oetition. The issue in the oresent case is clear violation of the standard orocedure laid down in the Secunderabad Cantonment Act Dertainino to Sections 287 and 318 and clear violation of G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4 .2O2O clause 2.b). 20. This Court ooines that there is cle r violation of rin fn ural us e n se. Th is of the firm oDtnlon that the oetitioners ht ouo to have been out on notice orior to issuino the Dre ent imouoned Memo dated 3O.1o.2O15 bv the 2nd resoondent and orior to Dassinq th imouoned order dated 30.1O.2015 bv the nd n in all fai es asb f h etitio h orders n heard n h fore t n r imouqned are in clear violation of audi alteram oartem rule. 2L. This Court ooines that the Sec nderabad Cantonm nt Board is an Authoritv to determine the ouestions eff no riohts of subiects has dutv to act iudiciatlv and Respondent - Cantonment Board cannot 24 eci a st h rt h th ti tn rwi ou e ron r o the to r res hi h ca h ma lln n w T Co hef tsa on t h e ed final o er which has been nassed admitt lv with ut orovidinq an oD ortunitv of hea rinqtoth e peti toner and wh ch ev nac rdino o the earne coun lao earr n on half f nd s tra a du lai wn nd 2 7 d3 18of the Cantonment Act, 2 06. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (20O9) 12 SCC 4O in Umanath pandey & Others vs. litate of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para lO : The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by al! civilized States is of supreme importance w,hen a quasi_ judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civit consequence!; is in issue. These principles are weil setfled. .trhe first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. ft mus,t be precise 25 and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natura! 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 L2L5, the first statutory recognition of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of natural justice requires to \"vacate, interrogate and adjudicate\". In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works the principle was thus stated: (ER p. 42O). \"Even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence. 'Adam' (says God), 'where art thou? Hast thou not eaten of the tree whereof I 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 naturial justice are those rules which have been laicl down by the courts as being the minimum prc,tection of the rights of the individua! against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority whiie making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice\". 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2O23) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHER$,, at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that prcrcedures 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 Tuls,iram patet has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Afticle 14: (SCC p. 476, para 95) \"95. The principles of natural justice have thus come to be recognised as being a part of the guarantee contained in Article 14 because of the new and dynamic interpretation given by this Court to the concept of equality which is the subject-matter of that article. Shortly put, the syllogism runs thus: violation of a rule of natural justice results in arbitrariness which is the same as discrimination; where discrimination is the result of State action, it is a violation of Article 14: therefore, a violation of a principle of natural justice by a State action is a violation of Article 14. Article 74, however, is not the sole repository of the principles of natural justice. What it does is to guarantee that any law or State action violating them will be struck down. The principles of natural justice, however, apply not only to tegislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. ln such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 24. In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in 'SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA\", the 2a 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 industriat undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of lthe Industries (Development and Regutation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of hinnself and D.A. Desai, J. laid down the following principles o,f law: (SCC p. 589, para 44) observed as under: \"44. ln 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 p()st_ 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 decisiona I is silent with regard to the giving hearing to the person affected ofa and pre- the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need 29 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, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.\" 25. In \"MANGILAL V. STATE OF M.P., reDorted in (2OO4) 2 SCC page 447, a two-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that the principles of natural justice need to be observed even if the statute is silent in that regard. In other words, a statutory silence should be taken to 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: \"10. Even if a statute is sil'ent and there are no s e Rule r thereunder, there codld be nothinq wrons in soellino out the need to hear the Darti'es whose riahts and tob rs th mav be oa d-a nd makina it a uirement to llow a ,r re be n a n unless the statute orovides otherwise. The principles 30 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 p7\"r\"nr\"r,on of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, potwer inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi_ judiciat character, to adopt modalities necess,ary to achieve requirements of naturat justice and, fair ptay to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on thc!, principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in th,at regard in a given situation. ft has always heen a cherished principle. Where the statute is site.nt about the ohservance of the principles of natura,l justice, such statutory silence is taken to imply compliance with the principles of natural justice where substantial rights of parties are considerably itffected. The application of natural justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express word:; of statute or necessary tntendment. Its aim fos cure ustice or ,, m ve e f th la b f na us I la t tn w a Th a m dandno an nd in th sn n s to ane emselves.\" 31 26. In *CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVI\", reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 5O1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14. Similarly, in \"DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 6OO, the Apex Court observed that the rule of audi alteram partem enforces the 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 L4. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-ludge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audit of the accounts of the assessee. This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section L42(2-A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the I I I I I 32 14 of the opportunity a show- cause notice opportunity of hearing Constitution unless the requirement of an to show cause is read into it. The Court assessee, the requirements of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 24. In ..KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. ST/ TE oF reported in (2011) 13 SCC page 7gg, 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 issuing a show,_cause notice. D.K.Jain, J. speaking on behalf of the two_Judge Bench held that a show-cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) is made. The Couft held that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article U.P:\" observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framerd in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted lega! principles in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion thiat 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 should be issued and an should be afforded to the l i 33 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 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. It is settled law when a statute describ s or requires a thino to be done in a oarticular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs. Amara Ramakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd 426). B) Division B n h fA iudqment dated O4.10.2O21 in Suoertech Ltd., Vs. Emerald Own rR tf re Ass n reDorted tn 2o2L sCC Online SC 3422, referring to Taylor 34 Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported ln (1936) L.R.63 Irrd Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operative Society Ltd., Vs. The Aurangabad & Ors., Regional Transport Authority, reported tn AIR 1960 SC 8O1 at para 13 observed as u nder: \"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 alt and that other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a partacular ttring 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 doring something necessarily implies a prohibition on dloing it in any other way. o st ati th for aid facts and T es ca an tnv w 1F h u w e x var s m ts r to d tr ve d discussionas rrived at as above, the th Ii of rit Petition is il d ra df res den o. w s trected not R 35 to take anv further action pursuant to the impuoned Public Notice vide No.SCB/RS/Ro oftoo Hoardinos/2O23 / 1156 dated 12.6.2O23. However, it is clearlv observed that this order wil! not come in the wav of the 2\"d resoondent - Cantonment Board to take anv appropriate action in accordance to law as Der t e orovisions of Cantonment Act, 2OO6 bv followino the standard orocedure oertaininq to notice as D ovided under Sections 297 nd 318 of the Cantonment A 20()6. However. there sh ll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/- P. PADMANA ASSISTANT BHA REDD REGI Y R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Secretary, For Defence The Union of India' ryew Delhi' The Chief Executive ofl ,\"\"i rnJ J\"i\"'nO-t*u\"t C'nto^nment Board' Sardar BxE C\" il. Sf [*\":fl['sils; ff:: l'6f5: r1'3t3]r one CC to Sri K.R. xotesn*li'nl-ri' 5C tot Cantonmeht BoardlOPUCl one CC ro Sri Gadi prru\"\"liiriiXi io\"v.\"Soi\"it6i Generat of ln-dia) [OPUCI 1 2 2 4 5 6 TJ GJP . Two CD CoPies e HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212023 ORDER WP.No.16870 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. I ts 2 "