ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the respondents towards levying the penalty by way of notice dated 08.03.2022 for the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- and reminder notice dated 20.05.2022 for the payment of amount towards the erection of the name board of the petitioner’s premises No.5-8-52/J (5-8-55/Hp/Sf), Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad, comprising of Ground Floor + 4 upper floors, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. Sri Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a notice dated 08.03.2022 is issued to the petitioner by GHMC directing it to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The notice reads thus : Where as it is found that without the written permission of the competent authority you have erected advertisement element/ displayed or mounted or painted an advertisement/ Use of flashing lights or Non static illumination in the advertisements/ Size of the advertisement or name board exceeding 15% of the frontage of the building/ Use of Moving, rotating or variable message Advertising Devices/ Operating an Advertisement element without valid Structural Stability Certificate/ Advertisement on moving vehicle where the advertisement is placed in a manner of any additional board, structure or projection on the body of the vehicle/ Use of Illuminated Advertisements with brightness more than the allowed limit, which is an offence committed under the above mentioned Sections of GHMC Act and as per the G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 20.04.2020. Therefore exercising the powers, the offence is compounded with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) Learned counsel submits that as stated by the respondents, the petitioner has not erected any such kind of boards. Without any basis, the respondents have arrived at an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the violations, which the petitioner could not understand. 3. Sri Sampath Prabhakar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel, submits that in the notice, the respondents stated the violations which would took place in erecting the board. He submits that in the bottom column of the notice, it is clearly mentioned the violation that ‘erection of unauthorized advertisement element above 15 feet in height from ground level’. He submits that the respondents mentioned all the violations, which are covered by G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 20.04.2020. He submits that in the bottom column of the notice, it is clearly mentioned the violation that ‘erection of unauthorized advertisement element above 15 feet in height from ground level’. He submits that the respondents mentioned all the violations, which are covered by G.O.Ms.No.68, dated 20.04.2020. He submits that the said G.O. has come into force with the object that as the advertisement elements which are at huge heights from the ground level have collapsed a number of times in the recent past, although certified as stable, thereby creating havoc and also certain advertisement elements due to cluttering are not only a eye sore but also give shabby look to the city. Hence, certain guidelines are issued. For granting permission for erection of boards is below 15 feet from the ground level. He further submits that as per clause 2(e), size of the Name Boards, whether single or multiple, should be confined to 15% of the Frontage of the Building and should be placed in such a way that they shall not obstruct the flow of natural light or ventilation in to the buildings. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has erected two boards and one board is erected above 15 feet in height from the ground level. Hence, the penalty mentioned in the notice is issued as per the said G.O. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice, the respondents have given several reasons and according to him, the petitioner is authorised to erect a name board. 5. A perusal of the impugned notice shows that the respondents have mentioned all possible violations. While issuing notice, the respondents ought to have specified the specific violation which the petitioner has committed. It is submitted by learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC that they will file a detailed counter-affidavit in this regard. He submits that there is a noble cause behind issuing the G.O. But, this Court is not able to appreciate the same, as the implementation of G.O. should also be in a process known to law and this kind of orders/notices, they cannot achieve the noble object as stated by the learned Standing Counsel. The respondent Corporation in a callous manner cannot issue notices and the person to whom it is issued, is not in a position to understand what is the illegality committed by him. The respondent Corporation in a callous manner cannot issue notices and the person to whom it is issued, is not in a position to understand what is the illegality committed by him. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the notice dated 08.03.2022 and the respondents are directed to issue a fresh notice mentioning the specific reason/s. This Court wants to impose costs on the person who has passed the order, but cautioning the respondent Corporation, if these kind of orders/notice are passed in future, appropriate orders will be passed against the officer. 6. With the above said direction, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the notice dated 08.03.2022. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.