At, High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT SINGH
For the Appellant: Anil Mehta, Counsel. For the Respondents: ----------------
1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
2. M/s. Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited has filed this Appeal against an order passed by learned Single Judge dated 26.05.2014, by which he dismissed the writ petition against the demand of advertisement fee raised by the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur for putting a hoarding for advertisement of the product on a commercial building without obtaining licence, for the period, for which the boarding was put on the roof top of the building on a steel structure.
3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the licence was not obtained for putting the hoarding on the commercial building and no protest was made to the demand notice for realising the advertisement fee, nor there is any provision in the Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur (Advertisement) Bye-laws, 2004 (for short, 'Bye-laws, 2014'), which requires any hearing before raising demand of advertisement fee on specified rates.
4. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, we find that display of the hoarding for advertisement on the commercial building, without any licence, was illegal. No protest or objection was made to demand notice for realising the advertisement fee, nor there is any provision in the Bye-laws, 2004, which provides for hearing before raising the demand of advertisement fee. The Bye-laws were not challenged.
5. It is submitted that since there is no provision for adjudication, the provisions for demand and realisation of advertisement fee, are bad in law. Since no objection was filed, nor any protest was made to the demand of the advertisement fee, it is not appropriate for the writ court to adjudicate the matter at the first instance. If the petitioner is aggrieved with the quantum of the fee, there is a provision of appeal under the bye-law No. 26 of the Bye-laws, 2004 notified on 28.07.2004, to challenge the demand notice.
6. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of with directions that in case the appellant deposits the entire amount under the demand notice, and files an appeal, the appeal will be decided expeditiously. We are informed that the Appellate Authority has not been nominated. If that be so, the State Government will b
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e advised to nominate the Appellate Authority, within a period of one month. In case the amount is not deposited within one month, the Appellate Authority will not entertain and decide the appeal. Appeal dismissed - petitioner may file appeal.