THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16932 of 2007 ORDER: The respondent issued a notification dated 18.03.2006 inviting tenders for grant of licence to erect electronic based Light Emitting Diode (LED) video boards at different places in the city of Hyderabad. According to the notification, the initial period of licence is three years and the same is extendable up to 15 years. The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer. Vide proceedings, dated 05.06.2006, the licence was granted in respect of 5 locations for initial period of two years. However, vide proceedings, dated 03.08.2007, the petitioner was required to remove the installations on the ground that the licence period expired on 04.06.2007 and that the application for renewal was not filed within the stipulated time. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said proceedings. It is stated that the very initial grant of licence for two years is contrary to the conditions of tender and the impugned order was passed before expiry of even one year. It is further stated that the petitioner deposited Rs.6,30,708/- towards the licence fee for two years and that the respondents were trying to levy extra charges. The petitioner contends that it did not violate any conditions and that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. On behalf of the respondent, it is pleaded that the licence was granted to the petitioner only for one year and that the application for renewal was not filed within time. It is also stated that in W.P.No.11740 of 2007, a taken up case, orders were passed prohibiting display of LED boards and that clearance was given by a Division Bench of this Court only through order dated 31.12.2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation. The main area of controversy is as to the period of licence, which was either required to be granted or the petitioner is entitled to. The stipulation in the tender notice reads as under: “The initial period of licence is three years, extendable up to 15 years.” The petitioner emerged as the successful tenderer to install 15 LED boards at five locations. In the proceedings dated 05.06.2006, through which licence was granted to the petitioner, it is mentioned as under: “the initial period of licence is (2) years, which can be renewed every year, on mutually agreed terms and conditions.” A copy of the terms and conditions was annexed. The first condition reads as under: The permission is valid for the period ending up to 04.06.2007. The letter ‘7’ is written with ink, whereas the rest of the matter is printed. This does not accord with the contents of the order, dated 05.06.2006. In the impugned proceedings dated 03.08.2007, the respondent took the view that the licence period expired on 04.06.2007 and since the application for renewal was not filed within time, the petitioner cannot use the facility any longer. The approach of the respondent demonstrates typical red-tapism, if not arbitrariness. In the tender notice, a clear promise was made to the effect that the initial period of licence would be three years and that it would be extended for 15 years thereafter. Therefore, the grant itself should have been for three years. The respondent has chosen to pass orders granting licence for an initial period of two years. The petitioner did not raise any objection. Requiring the petitioner to stop the facility before expiry of two years cannot be sustained in law. In case, the petitioner was due any licence fee, it is always open to the respondent to collect it. Further, no notice was issued to the petitioner as to why its licence be not terminated. When the respondent was taking shelter under an order passed by this Court on 28.08.2007, the petitioner approached and filed W.P.M.P.No.8667 of 2008 in W.P.No.11740 of 2007. The Division Bench clarified that the order, dated 28.08.2007 passed by it is not an impediment for the petitioner to seek necessary remedies. Therefore, the respondent is under obligation to honour the stipulation in the tender notice. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 03.08.2007 is set aside. It is directed that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent- Corporation shall be governed by the relevant terms and conditions of the contract and that the petitioner shall be under obligation to pay the licence fee for the period during which it availed the facility. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 21.12.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16932 of 2007 Date: 21.12.2009 JSU