T.V.S.Ramesh Babu V. The Union of India

WP/16868/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by T.V.S. Ramesh Babu against the Secunderabad Cantonment Board and the Union of India, challenging 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 and violated principles of natural justice. The respondents defended the notice citing public safety and compliance with the Cantonments Act, 2006. The court examined the procedures followed by the 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) 686289 (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 PRAVEEN KUMAR; K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHAKAR REDDY
• Keywords: Cantonment Board; Mandamus; Public Safety; Rooftop Hoardings; Writ petition
• Section: 15(1); 297; 318

Judgement Text

"132521 IN THE 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 SUREPALL] NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16868 OF 2023 Between: T.V.S. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Sri Kasi Rao Age.56 Yrs R/o. 1't Floor, 6-3- 668/1 0/39. Durganagar Colony, Punja Gutta,Hyderabad-82 ...PETITIONER AND 1 2 The Unron 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 lvlandamus declaring the order passed by Respondent No 2 dated 12.06.2023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoard ings/202311156 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 Sectron 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 not to remove roof top hoardings belonging to Petitioner on the roof top of the Below mentioned premises. Serial No Location of the Hoarding Structure No. of Structures Hoard ing 1 P.No 36, Wellington Secunndrabad Club, Secunderabad Near JBS J lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Road, Near 1No Between: The Chief Executive Officer, Secunderabad Cantonment Board, Court Compound, S.P. Road, Secundera bad-500003. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.2 AND 1 T.V-S. Ramesh Babu, S/o. Sri Kasi Rao Age.56 Yrs R/o. 1't Floor, 6-3- 668/10/39, Durganagar Colony, Punja Gutta, Hyderabad-82 ...RESPONDENT No.1/WRIT PETITIONER 2. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary,Ministry of Defence, Room No.305, B-Wing Sena Bhavan, New Delhi. (Respondent No.2 not necessary party in this petition) ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the lnterim Order dated 0310712O23 in WP No.16868 of 2023 rn respect of the impugned Public Notice dated 1210612023 and dismrss the Writ Petition, in the interest of justice under the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SUDHAKAR REDDY REPRESENTING FOR SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA) Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.R. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION o. 16868 0F 2023 RDER : Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetluru Srinivas, Iearned counsel for the petationer 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 Counset 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 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roofrop Hoardings/2023/1156 issued by Respondent No.2 as rllegal and cons€quentially set aside the operation of notice dated 12.06.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023/ 1156.\" 3. The case of the Petitioner in tlrlef The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor adverrtising under the name and style of \"Sri Ven Ads,\" R/o. 1't ( Floor, 6-3-668llO/39, Durganagar Colony, Punja Gutta' Hyderabad-82 and eking out his livelihood The petitioner in the course of his business had erected roor top hoardings on the roof top of the premises of P No' 36, Wellington Road' Near SecunderabadClub,Near]Bs,Secunderabad,bymaintainingall safety standards, by paying all necessary rents to the owners of the buildings and also paid all necessary taxes wlthout any default.Itisfurtherthecaseofthepetitionerthatthe2nd respondent - Secunderabad Cantonment Board had issued a General Public Notification in Deccan Chronrcle News Paper dated 12.06.2023thatalltherooftophoardingsalongwithits structuresberemovedimmcdi.]telyinVieWofPublicSafetyonor before 30.06.2023. Hence the present wrrt petition' PERUSED THE REco D. 4. The impugned Public Notice dated L2'O6'2O23 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O231LL56 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 cantonments Act 2006. The owner of building personally liable for any damages caused or of life. as per will be 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 3Oth )rne 2023, lailing whrch action will be initiated as per Cantonments Act 2006 and subsequently will be liable to pay penatry 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, 2(J22 at 15OO hours, in particutar, the relevant paras, read as under: \"[15] To consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection of banncrs and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts of unauthorized erections, etc , that is not only dangerous to the perlestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the pu blic Places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Banners ii) Reduction of PenaltY charges' It is proposed that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4' x 6' and will be put ln 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. Re I uti on: The CEO apprised the Board that th's 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 mentaoned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas' Shri l. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHtvlC has been finalized after detailed discussions and after formation of committees that ) proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment Board. Further, he requested to form a committee making CEO and himself as members of the committee for this purpose. The PCB informed that there is no necessity to redo the entire exercise for the Cantonment and recommended to levy the penalty charges/rates at par with GHMC. The pCB further stated that in the earlier Board Meeting, the matter was pended for two reasons and now both have been addressed. After the detailed discussion, the Board resolved to approve authorised spaces for erection of flexis/Banners on the agenda side and the penalty charges for unauthorized advertisement elements. The CEO is authorised to formulate a procedure for implementing the same trom Ot.L!.2O22.,, 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday' the loth day of May, 2023 at 11OO hours, reads as under: \"[13] fo consider the note submitted by Revenue Section for \"Regulating advertrsement hoardings on roof top of private buildings in respect of safety & security of the residents\". 6 As per the said report, this office is collectlnq Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt 15 10 2014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt'19.10.2020. Further, it is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby 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 which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times' a lthoug h certified SubsequentlY, the as stable, therebY creatrng havoc Government has issued oPeratlve guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level' The revenue collected through u6ugrll5prngnt fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the ye:ar 2072'23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment' the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment' The relevant papers are placed on the table Resolution: The CEO apprised the Board about regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftop of private buildings in respect of safety of the public. By removing these hoardings, approximately there will be a loss of Rs.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 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 all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 30th June, 2(J23, failing which action to be taken agaanst the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.Zg.Og.2022 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2006.,, 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b) reads as under: 'b) All the advertisement elements which are above 15 feet height from ground level shall not be permitted. Those 8 advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceedinq 15 feet from qround le e h lr t rm sh il dh V dv ls m n b GH Tho I e e shatt h time ts hi hh ve an on oan all tm er ov di mm diat er om e n f erl d. rther an a vert en F if r n o s n sr ovedt rwhat ver eas he AIN shaIt be r e e t oe mlss on all be corded and t h ac r ma a c c lled 8, The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act' 2006 regarding imposition of taxation' reads as under: \"(17) the control and supervision -:t places where dangerous or offensive trades are carlred on so as to secure cleanliness therein or lo mlnlmise any injurious' offensive or dangerous effects arising or likely to arise therefrom; (18) the regulation of the erection of any enclosure' fence' tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof\"' aff davit fil d b he 2nd e o e eri n 9 o n icular Pa ras 7, 10 an t, rea s as und 9 1 r Dart *7. I further humblY submit that' regarding collection of to time from the hoarding charges/fee from time Petitioner, the Board is emPowered to collect such license I 9 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 remaintng 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 impugnecl pubtic Notice calling for the owners to remove the rooftop hoardinqs. 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 an unt VI e faP e ti ha an bre hin bti oti be ted tim to m h ew ere m re an b rtu n r t tmDuqnedPu btic Notice I ssued for demolitionof he oar s oar has no in n cl e he en ti busr nes of the etitioner and he can v rV ell es busi n sb re- rec e o tn structur 5fe fro the qround level after tai n es below ite n n from eBo t0 Therefore, there will not be any loss of revenue or livelihood to the petitioner, as alleged' 10. I further humbly submit that, the impugned Public Noticewasissuedtoremovetherooftophoardingstructure ontwocounts.oneistoprotectSafetyandsecurityofthe public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings; and as a policy decision, the owners of such rooftop hoardings were directed to remove the same, however they may re-erect their hoardings below 15 feet from ground level' as is permissible in GHMC area, and the present Notice is issued in consonance with G.O Ms No 68 of GHMC' as detailed supra. In view of the same, the Writ Petitioner is required to remove the propertY. rs ed allin 11. I further humbly submit that, a Writ Petition is maintainable under Artrcle 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on threc circumstances viz'' (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) violationofstatutoryprocedurelnthepresentcase'the Petitioner is not falling in any of these three exceptions' as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged 3s, as subsequent to Board's Res luti n he rm n d Pub lc tic has ee rooftop hoarding structures from his u nthea ten to of heo rs t where rooftooh oard inq ruct have s buildinqs be n erec ed so as th Advt. A s and ve II sufficient ta me to remove the rooftop hoa qs. Secondly, the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, represented by the Chief Executive OFF|cer, 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.16613 of 2O23 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a ruinousstateor,forWantofsufficientrepairS,protectionor enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood' the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may' require the owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them' the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may require him to repair, or to protect or to enclose, the same in such manner as he thinks necessary; and, if the danger is' in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer' imminent' he shall forthwith take such steps as he thinks necessary to avert the same. Section3lSoftheCantonmentAct,2OO6'readsasunder: 318. Service of notice, etc'- ( 1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall' save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented- (a) by giving or tendering the notice' order or requisilion' 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 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' by post, to the Person for whom it is tl (2) When any such notice, order or requisition is required or permitted to be served upon an owner, lessee or occupier of any building or land, it shall not be necessary to name the owner, 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 occupter, 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 req u is itio n is to the That the impugned public Notice is in viotation of the pr inciples of natural justice, It is without j u risd iction, It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, person on whom a notice, be served is a minor, service order or upon his guardian or upon an adult member or servant of his family shall be deemed to be service upon the minor.,, 11. Learned counse! appearing on behalf of petitioner mainly puts forth the foilowing submissions: (i) (ii) ( iii) f I,1 (iv) That the respondent - Cantonment Board adopted a pick and choose policy and issued notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on 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: (l) The Board has published a Publrc Notice on 12'06.2023 in Shakshi (Telugu)' Deccan Chronicle (English) and Hindi Milap (Hindi) newspapers' whereby the owncrs 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, falling which action would be initiated as Per the Act, 2006' (ii) Thereafter, the individual notices were also issued to the Advertisements Agencies and owners of the buildings on which the advertisement hoardings structures are erected to remove the same before 30.06.2023- (iii) The issue regarding regulating advertisement hoardings on rooftops of private buildings in respect had the the li 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.O4.2020, though there is a loss of revenue of Rs.1.00 Cr. Per annum, since human life is more important that the revenue being generated, the Board has also resolved that all the rooftop hoardings along with the structures be removed, in view of the public safety on or before 30.06.2023, failing which action would be taken against the violators, and accordingly the said instruction was issued to the petitioner to remove the hoardings, keeping in view of the safety of the public. (iv) The Cantonment Board is rcmovcd the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds - One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy deosron. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Cantonment Board placed reliance on the ludgment dated 7t.07.2O23 passed in W.P.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13. A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29tr' day of September, 2022 at 1500 hours clearly indicates two issues Firstly - to consider imposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, which however, is not the subject issue in the present writ petition, and Secondly the proposal that cut out hoarding will be a maximum size of 4'x 6'and will be put in a manner that does not obstruct movement of 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 lhe Poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as follows: VIO LATIO N Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized AdvertisemenI element Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day above 15 feet in height from gr I6 ound level Use of Flovrng, ro[aLing oi- varrable message Erectlon 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 Wlqlqu! pgrm ission Size of the Advertisement/Name board exceeding Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. Per Day 150/o Fronta ge of the bu ild ing Rs.10,000/- Per Day Advertisin Devices Operatrng an Advertisement element wlthout valid st. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Structural StaQllity Certifi,cate Rs.50,000/- Per Day t1 Advertisement Rs. 10,00O/- per vrolation advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or prolection on thc body of the vehicle Use of illuminated Advertisements with brightness Rs. 10,000/- per violation Eorq then allowed Iimit Wall Writings Rs.1,000/- for each wall writin Wall Posters Rs.2 000 - for each oster Unauthorized eTectron of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each ba nner &Cutout L4. A bare perusal of the G.o.t 4s.No.68 dated 20.o4.2020 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 oround level and have comoleted their allottedterm shall on moving vehicle where the 7 8 9 10 11 remov medaa GHMC. T adve elements which have an onooino all tment Deriod hall be moved imm diatel after m letion e tim G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines From granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC a rea. t8 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 will be adjusted is untenable in view of the simple fact that G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4.2020 on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed IS totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2O2O, 2.b) which clearly siates that those advertisement elemen which are alreadv existino on the qround on the buildinqs exceedinq 15 feet from qround level and have comDleted their allotted terms shall be removed immediatel b GHMC. Those dv ement elements which have an ono inq allotment oeriod shall be removed imm edi a v tel after moletion of the time oeriod. This Court opines that the Secunderabad Cantonment Board did I9 not consider the issue of the 'onqoinq allotment oeriod, (as stated rn 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 proccdure under Section 297 and 31g of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (referred to and extracted above) had not been followed. L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated 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 rt had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, llr.- 0 the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on or before 30th lune, 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 lt is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W'P'No'16337 of 2023 as under: \" Notice before admission ' Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No 1 Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, Secunderabad Cantonment, No.2. This Writ Petition is filed challenqing the public notice, dated 12.06.2023, issued by respondent No'2' requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertisementhoardingstruCtUresontherooftopofthe buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30'06'2023 and further it is also indicated that if the same is not done before the sald 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 putllic notice' the present writ petition is filed. Sri K,R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel respondent No.2-Board submitted that unless until individual notices are issued to respective lea rned Standing Counsel for takes notice for resPondent for and ?t owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.O6.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on lt .Oj.2023 for filing co u n ter- aFFida vit. 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 ?try, 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 2,,d respondent - Cantonment Board, recorded in the order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.15337 of 2023 ciearly indicates that the assurance of the learned counsel before the Court lrad not been adhered to and that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the advertisement hoardinqs, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 12.06.2023 exercise of issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section Z9f and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne on record. 2) 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 respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety' road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G O rmposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achteve 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 restriction s ' \" This Court is not makin n bservat ns nso far G O.. is concern l.e., as issuance of he said t nor it is the subiect issue G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.o4.2o20 he res nt writ etition. Si nc th re n ch n in 20 -o4.2020 in the Irresent writ to G.O.M s.No.68 dated n. The i in the r sent cas asc r sue n iti down int h Secunderab d the stand oc ard pr edure laid nt ent Act rtainin to Sectio 28 a 3 a c nm cle r 2.b). iola nof o.M .No. 8d ed 20.04.20 cl se 20, This Court gpines that there is clear violation of rtn l atu ra I ustice in h resent case. This is of the firm oDtnton that the petitioners ouq have been out on notace orior to is utno the Dresent imouoned s Memo dated 30.10.2015 bv the 2nd resoondent and orior ir'r lt assr n the im llI tat n dated 30.10.201 E hrr fha 2nd resoondent in all fairness and admittedlv as borne on record the Detitioners have not been heard Drior to passinq of the orders imouoned and therefore, the orders imouqned are in clear violation ol audi alteram Dartem ru le, 2L. This Court o Dines that the Secunderabad Cantonm€nt Board is an Authoritv to determine the ouestions effectino riohts f subiects has dutv to act iudiciallv and Resoondent Cantonment Board cannot rt hts of the titioner wi h the petitioner or qivinq an oDDortunitv to the Detitioner to represent his or her case in the manner known to law. This Court is of the firm ooinion that the impuqned notice is a final order which has been oassed admittedly without earinq to the Detitioner and providinq an opportuni _) 1.1 which even accordinq to the learned counsel aooeanRq on behalf of the respo dent is contrary to the sta nda rd Drocedure laid down under Section 29 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 4O in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under: Para 10: 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 setfled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a 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 L2L5t 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 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 protectio{l of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority , l(, while making an order affecting those rights. These rules are intended to prevent such authority from doing injustice,,. 23. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2023) 6 Supreme Court Cases 1 in \"STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. RAJESH AGARWAL AND OTHERS,, at para 85 observed as under : \"85. Fairness in action requires that procedures which permit impairment of fundamental rights ought to be just, fair, and reasonable. The principles of natural justice have a universal application 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 Tulsrram patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action ln breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 14: (SCC p. 416, 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. ShorUy put, the sylloqrsm runs thus: 27 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 t4i therefore, a vtolation 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 legislation and State action but also where any tribunal, authority or body of men, not coming within the definition of \"State\" in Article 12, is charged with the duty of deciding a matter. In such a case, the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 24, In a decision of a three-Judge Bench of Apex Court reported in (1981) 1 Supreme Court Cases 664 in 'SWADESHI COTTON MILLS v. UNION OF INDIA\", the issue was whether the Central Government was required to comply with the requirements of audi alteram partem before it took over the management of an industrial undertaking under Section 18-AA(1)(a) of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. R.S. Sarkaria, J.speaking for the majority consisting of himself and D.A. 28 Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, para 44) observed as under: \"44. In shorl, 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 revrew of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hcaring to the person aFfected and 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-decisronal stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrattve progress or frustrate the need for utmost promplitude. In short, this rule of fair play 'must not be lettisoned 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 :e and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty pu blic 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 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,413-54, para 1O) observed as under: \"7O. Even if a statute is silent and there are no Dositive words in the Act or the Ru s made unde th ld be nothin tns ellin out the eed to hear the Darties whose fl qhts and tnterest are Iikelv to be affected bv the orders that mav be oassed. and makino it a reouirement to follow a fair orocedure before takino a decision, unless the statute provides otherwise. The principtes 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 judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve t0 requirements of natural justice and fair play to ensure better and proper discharge of their duties. Procedure is mainly grounded on the principles of natural justice irrespective of the extent of its application by express provision in that regard in a given situation. It has always been a cherished principle. Where the statute is silent about the observance of the principles of 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 justice becomes presumptive, unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessa rY intendment. Its aim is to secure iustice or to Drevent miscar'riaqe of iustice. Principles of natural iustice do not suDDlant e law, but u lement it. The I rate onl ,n n covered bv anv law validlv made. Thev are a means to an end and not a end in themselves.\" 26. In \"CANTONMENT BOARD v. TARAMANI DEVr\", reported in (1992) Supp (2) SCC page 501, a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that the rule of audi alteram partem is a part of Article 14, Similarly, in ,\"DTC v. MAZDOOR CONGRESS\" reported in (1991) Supp (1) SCC 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 1.4. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OO8) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was called upon to decide whether an opportunity of being heard has to be granted to an assessee before any direction could be issued under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for special audrt of the accounts of the assessee' This Court held that since the exercise of power under Section 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act Ieads to serious civil consequences for the assessee, the requirements of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the sald provisions. 2A. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U.P repo rted tn (2011) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity oi 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 shouid be issued and an opportunity of being heard should be afforded before an order under Rule 633(7) is made. The Court held that the rule would be open to challengefor being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution unless the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"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 justice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being hea rd. \" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the JJ 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 2\"d respondent. It is settled I w when a statute describes or requtres a thino to be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner or not at all. A) (M.Shankara Reddy Vs, Amara Rarnakoteswara Rao reported in (2017) SCC Online Hyd a26). B) The Division Bench of Aoex Court in its iudqment dat O4.LO.2O2L in Suoertech Ltd., Vs. Emerald urt Owner R reoorted an 2O2 re Association n r 1 SCC Onfine SC 3422. referring to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Emperor reported in Ch D426t Nazir Ahmed Vs. King (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-op€rative Society Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors., reported in AIR 1960 SC 8O1 at para 13 observed as u nder: ll .. \"It is that where a power is gaven to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of 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. Takino into consideration the afore aid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the law laid down bv the Apex Court in the various Judqments as (referred to and extracted above) and in the liqht of discussion as arrived at as above, the Writ Petition is allowedas Draved for. The resoondent No.2 is directed not n further action ur uan to he im u ned Pu Notice vide No.SCB/RS/RooftoD Hoardin qs/20231LISG 6,2023. However it is cl rl observed tha hi order will not come in the wav of the 2\"d respondent - Cantonm nt Board to take any approDriate action in rdan law as er the rovisions of ntonm n l5 Act. 2OO6 bv followino the s andard orocedure oertainino tn nrltirF as nrrlrrid ed under Sections 297 and ? R of tha I Cantonment Act, 2006. However, there shall be no order To, as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed . SD/- MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER 1. The Secretary, The Union of lndia, For Defence New Delhi. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, The Secunderabad Cantonment, Board Sardar Patel Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad-500003. 3. One CC to SRI CHETLURU SREENIVAS, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI K.R. KOTESHWAR RAO, SC FOR CANTONMENT BOARD loPUCl 5. One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUIVIAR (Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA)[OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies BN GJP rtr+\". HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212023 ORDER WP.No.16868 of 2023 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I t*IE sr4 ,e' 1 B Apf, ?0?l Et) o o -.ti : F... rcH 7 )-A +.. "