Vivekananda V. The Union of India

WP/16337/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Vivekananda, a businessman engaged in outdoor advertising, challenging a public notice issued by the Secunderabad Cantonment Board (SCB) for the removal of rooftop hoardings on safety grounds. The notice, dated 12-06-2023, directed the removal of all rooftop hoardings by 30-06-2023, citing public safety and aesthetic concerns. Vivekananda argued that the notice was issued without following due process and violated principles of natural justice. The SCB defended the notice, emphasizing public safety and compliance with a government order (G.O.Ms.No.68) regulating advertisement elements above 15 feet. The court, after examining the procedural lapses and the substantive arguments, ruled in favor of Vivekananda, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural norms in administrative actions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 735220 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Cantonments Act, 2006
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; K R KOTESHWAR RAO
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETTURU SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Mandamus; Public Safety; Roof Top Hoardings; Writ petition; Removal Notice
• Section: 151 CPC; 297; 318

Judgement Text

", L I 132521 HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) IIONDAY. THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITION NO: 16337 OF 2023 Between: Vivekananda, S/o. Srinivas Rao, Age 53 yrs, Occ; Business, R/o.Plot No.22, Margadarsini Colony, Rasoolpura. Secu nderabad -500003. .....PETITIONER AND 1. The Union of lndia, Represented by its Secretary, For Defence, Address.Room No 234 - South Block, Mrnistry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. The Secunderabad Cantonment. Board Represented by its The Chief Executive Officer Sardar Patel Road. Court Compound, Secunderabad- 500003 .....RESPONDENTS Petition Under Articte 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 Paper Publication notice dated 12-06- 2023 bearing No. SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/2O23l1 156 issued by Respondent No 2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice daled 12-06-2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023i 1 156. l.A.NO:1 OF 2023 Petition Under Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitron. 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 mentroned premises. Serial No.1 Location of the Hoarding Structure Plot No.9. Pubhc Sector Colony, Bownepally' Secunderabad. No of Hoarding Structures. 1 No. Serral No.1 Location of the t t t ! I I T t I I I I I I I I ! t t I I v r n E I' f, li & I n lt it ii I I I i Hoarding structure No Structures. 01 No' r.A.NO :2OF 2023 3 st[ i+ ;'J 8;^[txl 3; li s,'i ; Counsel for the ResPondent No'2 The Court made the following ORDER 92. Tadbund Circle' Secunderbad No of Hoarding : SRt GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR (DEPUTY : SRI K.R.KOTESHWAR RAO Between The Chiel Executive Ottrcer' Secundelabad Cantonment' Board Sardar Patel Road' ffi ;iilil;; Secunderabad-soooo3' \"\"PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No'2 R,jlllj;r,,H;sig:r::\" J:'d 333;. Busi ness R/o P I ot N o 22 \"\"'RESPONDENT No'1/WRlT PETITIoNERS AND 1 .Vivekananda, S/o Margadarsrnr ColonY' 2 rhe Union of rndia, Rgglg:its:3|JJ:.-:trt\"jifl For Defence', Address Room No Zga - Soutn Block MintstrY t \"\"'RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No\"l Petition Under Sectron 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 daled 27 -06-2023 in W P No 16337 of 2023 tn respect of the impugned Notice dated 12-06-2023 and dismiss the writ petition counserfor the Petition\"' ' 3[l sH?iLfl,Iff3lrl;f;Diocare ron THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA WRIT PETITI ON No. 16337 0F 2023 ORDER: Heard Mr.Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counse! appearing on behalf of Mr.Chetturu Srinivas, Iearned counsel for the petitioner on record, Mr.Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor Generat 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 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 72.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Rooftop Hoardings/202311156 issued by Respondent No.2 as illegal and consequentially set aside the operation of notice dated L2.O6.2023 in SCB/RS/Roof top Hoardings/2023 I 1L56.' 3. The case of the Petitioner in brief: The petitioner is carrying on business of outdoor acivertising under the name and style of \"Srikanth Publicities, 2 R/o.Plot No.22, Margadarsini Colony, Rasoolpura, Secunderabad - 500 003 and eking out his Iivelihood. The petitioner in the course of his business had erected two roof top hoardings on the rooF top of 1) Plot No.9, Public Sector Colony, Bownepally, Secunderabad and 2) Plot No.92, Tadbund Circle, 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 default. 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 atong with it structures be removed immediately in view of public safety on or before 30.06.2023. Hence the present writ petition. PE USED T E RECORD. 4. The impugned public Notice dated 12.06.2023 bearing No.SCB/RS/Roof Top Hoardings/2O23/LtS6 issued by the 2\"d 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. J 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 June 2023, 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, 2022 at 15OO hours, in particular, the relevant paras, read as under: \"[15] To consider irnposition of penalty on unauthorized advertisement hoardings, flexis, wall writing, wall posters, unauthorised erection oF banners and cut outs and other advertisement elements placed within the area of Secunderabad Cantonment with a view to restrict such acts 4 of unauthorized erections, etc., that is not only dangerous to the pedestrians but also eyesore giving shabby look to the public places. The matter was discussed in detail in the last Board meeting referred above. The Board vide CBR referred above resolved to pend the matter for next meeting to address two issues: i) Authorised space for erecting of flexis / Ba nners 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 material. No banners/cut out hoardings shall be placed to the poles and Trees. Resol utton: The CEO apprised the Board that this matter was placed in last meeting and pended for two issues i.e. i) Authorised space for erection of flexis,/Banners ii) Reduction of penalty charges. In this regard, the authorized places have been mentioned on the agenda side and the penalty charges are being proposed at par with GHMC areas. Shri J. Ramakrishna, Nominated Member, after examining the Government of Telangana GO expressed that the matter in the GHMC has been finalized after detailed discussions and aFter formation ot committees that 5 proposed these regulations. He opined that similar kind of exercise should be undertaken by the Cantonment aoard. 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 lrom OL.Lt.2022.\" 6. The True Extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Wednesday'the l0th day of Nlay, 2(J23 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\". 6 As per the said report, this office is collecting Advertisement Fees for Hoardings erected on roof tops of private buildings. The charges are being collected as per the rates fixed vide CBR No.24, Dt'15'10'2014 as per the rates of the GHMC and later the same were revised vide CBR No.28, Dt.19'r0.2020. Further, lt is to inform that the roof top hoardings are posing great threat to the nearby residents and commuters during heavY ra in s. The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (GHMC) Department, Government of Telangana has drafted a new Advertisement Policy vide GO MS No.68, Dt.2O.04.2020 wherein it has been mentioned that advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc. Subsequently, the Government has issued operative guidelines for granting permission only for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level' The revenue collected through advertisement fee from Hoardings on Roof top buildings for the year 2022-23 is Rs. 1,08,40,920/-. Therefore, keeping in view the safety and security of the residents of the Cantonment, the matter is placed before the Board for decision on removal of rooftop hoardings on private buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment. The relevant papers are placed on the table. 7 Resoluti on: 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 wil! 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 ats structures be removed in view of public safety on or before 30th June, 2O23, failing which action to be taken against the violators as per the Board resolution vide CBR No. 15, dt.29.O9.2()22 and as per provisions of Cantonments Act, 2OO6.\" 7. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.O4.2O2O clause 2.b) reads as under: 'b) 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 exceeding 15 feet from oround level and have com leted their allotted term shal! be removed immediatel v bv GHMC. Those adverti ment elements which have an onooinq allotment oeriod shall be removed immediatelv after completion of the time oeriod. Further if anv advertisement element is removed for whatever reason, no shiftinq oermission shall be accorded and the AIN shall be automaticallv cancelled.\" 8. The relevant sections of The Cantonment Act, 2OO6 regarding imposition of taxation, reads as under: \"(17) the control and supervision of places where dangerous or 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 enclosure, fence, tent, awning or other temporary structure of whatsoever material or nature on any land situated within the cantonment and the fees chargeable in respect thereof.,, 9. Coun r affidavit led bv the 2td resoondent, in oa rticular, Paras 7,9, 1O and 1 1, reads as under: \"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 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 ro 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 an oooortu n itv nd breathino time to remove hoardinos bv virtue of a Public N ce wherebv more than a week's time has heen aranted andbv VIrtue of the inrnr rzrnael Drrlrlia Nnliaa ic Cued for d ti m f n f fha hoardinqs. the Board has no intention to close the business of the oetition r and he can verv well restart the business by fe-erectinq the hoardinq struetures-below 15 feet from the qround level after obtainanq requisite sanction from the Board. 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 Notice was issued to remove the rooftop hoarding structure on two counts - one is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one 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 rooftop hoarding structures from his property. 11. I further humbly submit that, a Writ Petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against any Order passed or Notice issued by any statutory authority only on three circumstances viz., (i) violation of principles of natural justice, (ii) without jurisdiction and (iii) violation of statutory procedure. In the present case, the Petitioner is not falling in any of these three exceptions, as the Respondents have not violated the principles of natural justice, as alleged as, as subseouent to Board's Resolution, the imouqned Public Notice has been lin u on th attenti n of the own r buildinqs where rooftop hoardinq structures have beenerectedso as the Advt. Aoencies and oave lt t et re ov the f oar s. 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.6B 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 2023 and also the legal pleas raised thereunder. RELEVANT PROVISIONS: Section 297 of the Cantonment Act, 2OO6, reads as under: \"297. Power to require buildings, wells, etc., to be rendered safe.- Where in a cantonment any building, or wall, or anything affixed thereto, or any well, tank, reservoir, pool, depression, or excavation, or any bank or tree, is in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, in a 2 ruinous state or, for want of sufficient repairs, protection or enclosure, a nuisance or dangerous to persons passing by or dwelling or working in the neighbourhood, the Chief Executive Officer, by notice in writing may, require the owner, or part- owner or person claiming to be the owner or part- owner thereof, or, failing any of them, the occupier, thereof, to remove the same or may 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. Section 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006, reads as under: 318. Service of notice, etc.- ( 1) Every notice, order or requisition issued under this Act or any rule or bye- law made thereunder shall, save as otherwise expressly provided, be served or presented- (a) by giving or tendering the notice, order or requisition, or sending it by post, to the person for whom it is 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. li (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 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.\" 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf 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, (rii) It is in violation of statutory procedure laid down under the Secunderabad Cantonment Act, 14 (iv) That the adopted a notices. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing on the submissions put forth above, prayed that the writ petition should be allowed as prayed for. 12, Learned counset appearing on behalf of the 2\"d Respo ndent Cantonment Board on the other hand placing reliance on the averments made in the counter affidavit puts forth the following submissions: (i) The Board has published a Public Notice on L2.06.2023 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 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 rn respect (ii) respondent - Cantonment Board had pick and choose policy and issued the (iii) l5 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 Advertlsement 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. (iv) The Cantonment Board is removed the rooftop hoarding structures under the provisions of the Cantonment Act and therefore there is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice on two grounds - One is to protect safety and security of the public, the other one is to prevent shabby look to the Cantonment due to such hoardings, and as a policy decision' Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent - Cantonment Board placed reliance on the Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.Nos.3632B of 2022 and batch and contended that the writ petition has to be dismissed' l6 st. No, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 13, A bare perusal of the extract of the Ordinary Board Meeting of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad Held at the Conference Hall, Office of the Cantonment Board, Secunderabad on 'Thursday' the 29th day of September, 2022 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 the poles and Trees. The penalties to be imposed are as follows: VIOLATION Penalty amount (in Rs.) Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.1,00,000/- Per Day above 15 feet in hei ht from round level Erection of Unauthorized Advertisement element Rs.50,000/- Per Day below 15 feet in hei ht from round level Use of flashing lights/Non 1 2 Advertisement without ermrssron static illu mination Rs.50,000,r- Per Day 4 Size of the Advertisement/Na me board exceed ing Rs.100/- Per Sq.ft. per Day 15olo Fronta e of the buildin Use of Moving. rotating or variable message Rs.10,000/- per Day Advertisin Devices operating an Advertisement element without valid hr 6 Structural Stabilit Certificate Rs.50,000/- per Day 17 L4. A bare perusal of the G.O.Ms.No.6B dated. 20.04.2020 clause 2.b) clearly indicates that all the advertisement elements which are above 15 Feet height from ground level shall not be permitted and those advertisement elements which are already existing on the ground on the buildings exceeding 15 feet from qround level and have comoleted their allotted term shall 7 n moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board. structure or projection on the body of the vehicle Advertisement o Rs.10,000/- per violation I Use of illuminated Advertisements with more then allowed limit brightness Rs.10,000/- per violation 9 Wall Writings writin Rs.1,000/- for each wall 10 Wall Posters oster Rs.2 000 - for each 11 Unauthorized erection of Banners & Cut outs Rs.5,000/- for each banner & Cutout be removed immediatelv bv GHMC. Those advertisement ts which h all lra v orn m rt d shal! removed imm iatelv after comoletion of the time Deriod. G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020 which pertains to the Guidelines from granting new permission for advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level and also for regulating the existing advertisement elements below 15 feet from ground level in GHMC area. I8 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.63 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.ZO2O on the basis of which the Board Resolution dated 10.05.2023 had been passed is totally contrary to the specific instructions as indicated in G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.04.2020, 2.b) which clearly states that those adver'tisement elements which are alr adv exi ti no on heq round on the build nos exceedino 5 feet rom qroun d level and have comoleted the r allo terms hall be removed immediatelv bv GHMC . Those advertisement ele ents which h ve an nqoano allotment Der odshall be I ov medi tel a er com tion time riod. This court opines that the secunderabad cantonment Board did l9 not consider the issue of the .onooang ailotment Deriod, (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. L7. A bare perusal of the contents of the impugned public Notice dated 12.06.2023 clearly indicates that it is a final notice issued to the petitioners and not a Show cause Notice and the same indicates that as per the resolution of the Board it had been decided that all the rooftop hoardings along with its structures be removed in view of the public safety. Therefore, 20 the petitioners are directed to remove the rooftop 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 31g of the Cantonments Act has not been followed. It is also in fact observed in order dated 27.06.2023 passed in W.p.No.16337 of 2023 as under: \"Notice before admission. Sri Gadi praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of lndia takes notice for respondent No.1. Sri K.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Secunderabad Cantonment, takes notice for respondent No.2. This Writ petition is filed challenging the public notice, dated 12.06.2023, issued by respondent No.2, requiring the advertisement agencies having their advertisement hoarding structures on the rooftop of the buildings in Secunderabad Cantonment area are directed to remove the same on or before 30.06.2023 and further it is 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.R.Koteswar Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2_Board submitted that unless and until individual notices are issued to respective owners of the 21 advertisement hoardings, no Further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice, dated 12.06.2023. ln the circumstances, post the matter on ll .07.2023 for filing cou nter-afFida vit. Pending further orders, respondent No.2 is directed not to take any further action pursuant to the public notice, dated 12.06.202i3. However, this order wi!! not be come in the way of respondent No.2-Board to take dnyr appropriate action, in accordance with law, by following due process of law.\" 18. The submission of the leaned 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 to respective owners of the advertisement hoardings, no further action would be taken solely basing upon the public notice dated 12.06.2023 exercise oF issuing individual notices and following the mandatory procedure as laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, had not been followed, as borne as record. 22 19. It is true that this Court in its Judgment dated 11.01.2023 passed in W.P.No.36328 of 2022 and batch at para 23 observed as under: \"23. As per the above G.O., the intention of the respondent and the reasons for imposing restrictions on advertisement use is considering the public safety, road safety, aesthetic character and visual appearance of the city. In this regard, the G.O. imposes restriction on the advertisement elements. The restrictions that are imposed by the respondents on the height, distance and all the aspects are only to achieve the object of public good, safety and the aesthetics oF the city. The G.O. impugned satisfies the proportionality test and there is no illegality in imposing the restrictions. \" ourt i makin an observa insof as issuance of the said G.O., is concern 1.e., G.O.Ms.No.68 dated 20.O4.20 2O nor it is the subtect issue in the resent writ o ition. Since, there is no challenoe to G.O.Ms.No.68 dat 20.o4.2020 in the Dresent writ Detition, The issue in the oresent case is clear violation of the standard orocedure laid down in the Secund era bad Canton ent Act Dertai ninq to Sections 287 and 318 and clear violation of c.O.Ms.No.68 dated 2O.04.2O2O clause 2.b). 23 20. This Court ooines that there is clear violation of flncl les of n ra! e resent case. Thi t is of the firm opinion that the Detitioners ouqht to have been out on notice orior to issuinq the Dresent impuqned Memo dated 3O.10.2015 bv the 2nd resoondent and orior ln the im n er dated 30.1O.2 1 2nd resoondent in all fairness and admittedlv as borne on record, the oetitioners have not been hea rd orior to of the ord ned and therefore h e imouoned are in clear violation of audi alteram Dartem rule. 2L. This Court ooines that the Secunderabad ent Board is an Auth rt ouestions effectino riohts of subiects has dutv to act udiciall and Res n n n n B decide aoainst the riqhts of the oetitioner without hearinq the oetitioner or qivinq an oooortunitv to the oetitioner to n h h in the manner kn wn w This Court is of the firm opinion that the ilnpuqned notice is a final order which has been passed adgrittedlv without earinq to the oetitioner and t providinq an opportuna 21 which even accordino to the Iearned couns I aooearinq on behalf of the resDondent is contrarv to the standard nrnredrrre Iaid down unda r Scrtion 797 and 31R af tha Cantonment Act, 2O06. 22. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2OO9) 12 SCC 40 in Umanath Pandey & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another at paras 10 & 11 observed as under : Para 1O: The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasi- judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. The first and foremost principle is what is commonly known as audi alteram partem rule. It says that no one should be condemned unheard. Notice is the best limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party 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 essentia! that a party should be put on notice of 2i the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time' When the historic document was made at Runnymede in 12L5, the first statutory recognation of this principle found its way into the \"Magna Carta\". The classic exposition of Sir Edward Coke of naturat 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 calted 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 : \"Principtes of natural justice are those rules which have been laid down by the courts as being the minimum protection of the rights of the individual against the arbitrary procedure that may be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authority 26 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 Artlcle 14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Tulsiram Patel has categorically held that violation of the principles of natural justice is a violation of Article 14. The Court held that any State action in breach of natural justice implicates a violation of Article 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: 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 L4i 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 onty 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. ln such a case. the principles of natural justice require that it must decide such matter fairly and impartially.\" 24, [n 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. te Desai, J. laid down the following principles of law: (SCC p. 689, 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 post- decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre- decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the 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 for utrhost 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 29 and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. \" 25. In ..MANGILA L V. STATE OF M.P., reported in (2O04) 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: \" 7O. Even if a statute is silent and there are no rlositive words in the Act or the Rules thereunder. there could be nothino wrona in soellino out the need to hear the Darties whose ri hts and o interest are likelv to be affected bv the orders that mav be passed, and makins it a reouirement to follow a fair orocedure before takino a decis n. unless the statute rovides otherwise. The principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. No form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant's defence or stand. Even in the absence of a provision in procedural laws, power inheres in every tribunal/court of a judicial or quasi- judicial character, to adopt modalities necessary to achieve l0 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 apptication by express provision in that regard in a given situation- It has alwaYs principte. Where the statute is observance of the principtes of natural iustice' such statutory silence is taken to impty compliance with the principles of natural iustice where substantial rights of parties are considerably affected' The apptication of natural iustice becomes presumptive' unless found excluded by express words of statute or necessarY intendment. Its mts se u o to Drev nt isca rri aoe of iustice, Prin ioles of n ral sf d not su nt 'he u ment Th e rul so rate ve law validl ma .Th re ean toanend and not an end int hemselves.\" 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 14' been a silent cherished about the I t Therefore, any administrative action which violates the rule of audi atteram 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 iustice to meet the requirement of Article 14. 27. In \"SAHARA INDIA (FIRM) (1) v. CIT\", reported in (2OOB) 14 SCC page 151, a two-Judge Bench of this Court was 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 142(2-A) of the Income Tax Act leads to serious civil consequences for the assessee, the requirements of observing the principles of natural justice is to be read into the said provisions. 28. In \"KESAR ENTERPRISES LTD v. STATE OF U'P'\", reported in (2O11) 13 SCC page 733, wherein it is held that: \"the Court dealt with a challenge to the validity of Rule 633(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Excise Manual which allowed 32 the imposition of a penalty for breach of the conditions oF a bond without expressly issuing a show-cause notice. D.K.lain, 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 Court held that the rule would be open to challenge for being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution unless the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is read into it. The Court observed: (SCC p. 743, paras 30 & 32) \"3O. Having considered the issue, framed in para 16, on the touchstone of the aforenoted legal principles in regard to the applicability of the principles of natural iustice, we are of the opinion that keeping in view the nature, scope and consequences of direction under sub-rule (7) of Rule 633 of the Excise Manual, the principles of natural justice demand that a show- cause notice should be issued and an opportunity of hearing should be afforded to the person concerned before an order under the said Rule is made, notwithstanding the fact that the said Rule does not contain any express provision for the affected party being given an opportunity of being hea rd. \" 32. In our view, therefore, if the requirement of an opportunity to show cause is not read into the said Rule, an action thereunder would be open to challenge as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the power conferred on the competent authority under the provision is arbitrary.\" 29. In the present case Procedural Impropriety is evadent and borne on record since the standard procedure laid down under Section 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006 had not been adhered to by the 2nd respondent. Itass ttled law when a statute describes or reoutres a thino tohe done rna oart cula r ma ner 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 a26). B) The Davision Bench f Aoex Court in its iudqment dated O4.1O. 202L 4n Suoertech Ltd.. Vs. E erald Cou rt Owner Resident We fare Asso tation and Ors., reDorted in 2O21 Scc Online SC 3422. referting to Taylor Vs. Taylor, 1875 (1) Ch D426, Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor reported in (1936) L.R.63 Ind Ap372 and Parbhani Transport Co-operatave Socaety Ltd., Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Aurangabad & Ors', reported in AIR 1960 SC 801 at para 13 observed as u nder: 34 \"It is that where a power is given to do a certaan thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all and that other methods of performance are necessarity forbidden. Hence when a statute requires a particutar 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. Taktnq into con sideration the afo resaid facts and crrcums nces of the case, an in view of the law laid own h A c rt in the aflo Ju me a rre e a a ve nd in the la h f di uss! nas arri dat asa ove, the Writ P tition ls e s r n N T nd rs IT t tak n f h r n o h m edP bti Notice vide No.scB/ RS/Rooftoo Hoardinqs/2O23/ L 6 d 2.6 3.H ever ts lea rl ob rve at er n m in th wa of h 2\"d I on en -Ca m n oa d ot e n fla t a ron an cco ance la as Der theor ovision s of I i5 Cantonment ct. 2006 bv followtn the standard o orocedure Dertaanino to notice as orovided under Sections 297 and 318 of the Cantonment Act, 2006. However. there shallie no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this writ petition shall stand closed. SD/-A.V,S.PRASAD /ffRUE COPY// ASSISTANT R GISTRAR To q 6 SA (;JI' 1 2 3 4 SECTION OFFICER . The Secretary, Union of lndia, For Defence, Address.Room No 234 - South Block, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi ' The chief Executive officer, secunderabad cantonment, Board, sardar pater Road, Court Compound, Secunderabad_SOOOOA. - ' . One CC to Sri Chetluru Sreenivas. Advocate fOprrcr 91q 9Clq Sri Gadi praveen Kumar (DEpUii So-irctron GENERAL OF rNDtA)[oPUC] Qne CC to Sri K.R.Koteshwar Rao, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD Copies ( HIGH COURT DATED:1111212023 ORDER WP.No.16337 of 2023 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. 9b i 11 t4AR 202t l'\" on 1HE S ra 15. ( + o .) *- 'i.: r,1 11 iaEO > , "