THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10273 of 2011 Dated: 04.05.2011 Between: M/s. Sreshth Ads, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 10273 of 2011 ORDER : The petitioner-firm is carrying on the business in commercial advertising. It is stated that the petitioner was the successful bidder in the tenders invited by A.P. Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Koti, Hyderabad for erecting Uni-structure within the premises for a period of three years. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner made an application to the respondents-Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for permission to erect the Uni-structure with two boards of the size of 40’X 40’ and 40’ x 30’ along with required fee of Rs. 2,34,360/-. The petitioner had also submitted the required documents like structural stability, site plan and no objection certificate. The said application was received in the office of the 2nd respondent on 23.04.2010 and the Officials of the respondents visited the proposed site. It is claimed that the Officials of the Corporation were satisfied that the Uni-structure was within the premises of A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad, Koti, Hyderabad and that it was not projecting into the public pavement/footpath or the Bus Bay area and accordingly the petitioner was assured that the permission would be awarded as prayed for. It is pleaded that on the basis of the assurance given by the Officials of the Corporation, the petitioner-firm procured the equipment required for erecting Uni-structure and commenced the erecting work as there was mounting pressure from the technical team which supplied the equipment. While the work was in progress, W.P.No.23697 of 2010 was filed by one M/s. Fore-Sites, which is also carrying on the business in commercial advertising, making false allegations against the petitioner. In the said writ petition, G.H.M.C. filed a counter affidavit stating that the Uni-pole erected by the respondent No.5 (petitioner herein) in the premises of A.P.Vaidya Vidhana Parishad was unauthorised and illegal and that action would be taken for removal of the same. Having recorded the statement of the G.H.M.C. in their counter affidavit, this Court by order dated 25.03.2011 adjourned W.P.No.23697 of 2010 by two weeks. In pursuance thereof, the 2nd respondent issued a notice dated 26.03.2011 directing the petitioner to remove the Uni-structure immediately alleging that the same was erected unauthorisedly in contravention of Section 420(1) of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’) without waiting for prior written permission of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said notice issued by the respondents, the present writ petition is filed contending inter alia that the impugned action of the respondents in straight away directing removal of the Uni- pole without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit their objections is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of principles of natural justice. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned standing counsel appearing for the Corporation. While reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned action of the respondents in directing removal of the structures erected by the petitioner at the instance of a rival trader is arbitrary and illegal. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the Corporation submitted that the impugned notice was rightly issued in compliance with the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.23697 of 2010 and at any rate, since the Uni-pole was erected without obtaining necessary permission by the Corporation, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the action of the Corporation is arbitrary and illegal. It is also submitted by the learned standing counsel that the hoarding had already been removed with police help pursuant to the impugned notice dated 26.03.2011. At the outset, it is to be noticed that though an application was made by the petitioner seeking permission for erection of the Uni-pole, no such permission has been granted by the Corporation so far. The petitioner has not disputed the said fact, but it is claimed that on an assurance given by the Officials of the Corporation, the petitioner had commenced and completed the erection of the Uni-pole. Since it is admitted that the erection of the Uni-pole was without obtaining necessary permission of the Corporation, the uni-pole so raised by the petitioner being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Act, it is always open to the Corporation to direct removal of such unauthorized/illegal structure. Moreover, this Court having taken note of the said unauthorised/illegal structure raised by the petitioner herein recorded the statement in the counter filed on behalf of the Corporation that action would be taken for removal of the said unauthorized structure. It is also brought to my notice by the learned standing counsel for the Corporation that W.P.No.23697 of 2010 was disposed of by this Court on 18.04.2011 directing that the Corporation should ensure that the petitioner herein should not bring into existence any hoarding without any specific permission. The petitioner herein was arrayed as respondent No.5 to the said writ petition. Hence, he is bound by the order in W.P.No.23697 of 2010 and cannot be allowed to act contrary to the directions of this Court. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice issued by the Corporation cannot be held to be arbitrary, illegal or in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 04.05.2011 KLP