IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.9135, 9141 and 9183 of 2008 Writ Petition No.9135 of 2008: Between: M/s Sri Balaji Ads, Plot No.8, Sri Sai Colony, HMT Road, Chintal, Hyderabad. Rep by its Proprietor, Bajjuri Kaladevi,W/o. B.Narahari, aged 50 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional commissioner(Advt, parks, Estates & IT) Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, Rajendranagar Cirlce, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to display glow sign boards/Hoardings/Lamp pole boards at Attapur Bridge to Sivarampalli, in spite of permission being granted by the 2nd respondent under orders dated 18-3-2008 and the same is subsisting, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the 1st respondent to allow the petitioner to display their glow sign boards etc., at the permitted area upto 31.3.2010 until which period the permission was granted by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents: R.RADHA KRISHNA REDDY(SC FOR GHMC,SNCZONE) *** WRIT PETITION NO :9141 of 2008 Between: M/s. Out Source Advertising, Plot No. 11, Srinivasnagar Colony, Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, Hyd. Rep. by its Proprietor, B.Naveen Kumar, S/o. B.Narahari, Aged : 30 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner ( Advt, Parks, Estate & IT ), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyd. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Kukatpally Circle, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to display glow sigh boards / lamp pole posts at Bharathnagar Flyover, inspite of permission being granted by the 2nd respondent under orders dated 12.3.2008 and the same is subsisting, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the 1st respondent to allow th petitioner to display their glow sign boards etc., at her permitted area upto 31.3.2009 upto which period the permission was granted by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE *** WRIT PETITION NO : 9183 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sri Balaji Ads, Plot No.8 Sri Sai Colony, HMT Road, Chintal,Hyd. Rep. by its Proprietor, Bajjuri Kaladevi, W/o. B.Narahari, Aged : 50 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Additional Commissioner ( Advt, Parks, Estates & IT ), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tank Bund, Hyd. 2 Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Kukatpally Circle, hyd. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may leased to issue an order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, to declare the action of the 1st respondent in not allowing the petitioner to display glow sign boards at JNTU'x' Roads to Malaysia township, inspite of permission being granted by the 2nd respondent under orders dated 12.3.2008 and the same is subsisting, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and further direct the 1st respondent area upto 31.3.2009 upto which period the permission was granted by the 2nd respondent in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: R.N.BHARAT BABU Counsel for the Respondents.: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is one and the same, all these writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioners made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-2nd respondent for erection of Hoardings/Lamp Pole Boards/Glow sign boards on payment of advertisement tax. Their applications came to be considered and licence was accorded. Subsequently, the Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad-1st respondent started interfering through her staff by removing the glow sign boards erected by the petitioners stating that the licence granted by the 2nd respondent is not valid. 3. 1st respondent filed counter-affidavit. Smt.G.Vani Mohan, Additional Commissioner (Advt.), Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the Deputy Commissioner, G.H.M.C., Hyderabad-2nd respondent is not competent to issue any permission relating to the electric pole Kiosks and glow sign boards and or any other types of advertisement boards under Sections 420, 421 r/w.622 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and it is the Additional Commissioner (Advt.) GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent, who is competent to accord permission. It is further stated in the counter- affidavit that the Commissioner and Special Officer, GHMC, Hyderabad has not delegated the said powers in favour the 2nd respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corpoation. 5. A fact remains that licence has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Hyderabad-2nd respondent and necessary fee has also been collected from the petitioners. The licence has been in operation for the last five months. The Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent came up with a plea that the 2nd respondent is not competent to grant licence and therefore, the licence granted by the 2nd respondent is not valid. As on this day, the fee paid by the petitioners is not returned. If the 2nd respondent is not competent to issue licence, the 1st respondent has to serve notice on the petitioners before canceling the licence. Indisputably, no notice has been issued to the petitioners nor fee paid by them is returned. 6. In that view of the matter, all the writ petitions are disposed of at the admission stage directing the Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent to put on notice the petitioners before canceling the licence granted in their favour. Since licence granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P.No.9135 of 2008 stated to have been cancelled, the said cancellation of licence is treated as a show-cause notice and the petitioner in W.P.No.9135 of 2008 has to submit its explanation to the Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent within two weeks and thereafter the 1st respondent has to pass appropriate orders thereon within two weeks. In other two writ petitions i.e. W.P.Nos.9141 and 9183 of 2008, the Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent, is directed to issue show-cause notice to the petitioners before canceling the licence granted in their favour by the 2nd respondent. Till the conclusion of the process as indicated above, the Additional Commissioner (Advt., Parks, Estates & IT), GHMC, Hyderabad-1st respondent shall not interfere with the work being carried out by the petitioners in accordance with the licence granted in their favour by the 2nd respondent. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st July, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within two days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}