IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11857 of 2008 Between: M/s. Value-Adds, a preparatory firm having its office at H.No.42-286/7, New Maruthi Nagar, Dr. A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyderabad-500762, rep. by it's Proprietor B. Srinivas, S/o. B. Ram Mohan Rao, aged 42 yrs, occ: Business, R/o. Plot No.55, Jawahar Rail Colony, Sikh Village, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy. Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Malkajgiri Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus, appropriate writ or directions by declaring the actions of the respondents by not implementing their own impugned orders No.G2/597/2008 dated 26.02.2008 as illegal, null and void, without jurisdiction and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.R.S.SUSARLA Counsel for the Respondent No.: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) The Court made the following : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11857 OF 2008 ORDER: 1. This writ petition has been filed by M/s Value-Adds, a Proprietory concern, assailing the action of the Respondents in interfering with the erection of Hoarding, despite the permission granted vide proceedings No. G2/597/2008, dated 26-2-2008. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a licensee to erect Hoarding of size 2.5 feet width x 4 feet height with illumination at Sanikpuri Cross Roads to Neredmet Cross Roads, Hyderabad vide proceedings No. G2/597/2008, dated 26-2-2008. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondents having granted permission are interfering with the erection of Hoarding. 5. Whereas the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submits that if the petitioner is erecting hoarding of size permitted under proceedings dated 26-2-2008, the respondents are not going to interfere with the erection of ‘Hoarding’. 6. Recording his statement, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to put on notice in case of any violation in size of the hoarding before taking any action. No order as to costs. _____________________________ Justice B.Seshasayana Reddy 16th June, 2008. KM THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO. 11857 OF 2008 16th June, 2008.