HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 7927 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising, and has been accorded permission for erection of unipole with 2 boards of 40 x 40 size in house No.8-2-293/82/A/462/A, at Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad, by proceedings of the first respondent dated 03.05.2008. They claim to have paid advertisement fee of Rs.5,98,016/- to the first respondent and to have taken the said premises on lease to erect the unipole, facing the traffic moving from Banjara Hills to Jubilee Hills, on a yearly rent of Rs.13,20,000/-. While matters stood thus, the second respondent is said to have been accorded permission by the first respondent to erect a unipole on the building adjacent to the main road, in front of the petitioner’s premises where they had erected a unipole. The petitioner claims to have submitted representations dated 18.02.2010, 19.02.2010 and 22.02.2010 requesting the first respondent to direct the second respondent not to erect the unipole. The petitioner contends that because of recession in business they were unable to get proper income and, since the unipole now being erected by the second respondent, would result in the petitioner’s hoarding not being seen by the general public, they would suffer further loss thereby. According to the petitioner, earlier when the first respondent did not allow them to project the advertisement on the foot path, and on the buildings, adjacent to the main road, they were forced to take on lease the premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/A/462/A at Road No.19, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad; and the permission granted by the first respondent to the second respondent was in violation of principles of natural justice. On a query from this Court as to whether there is any statutory provision or rule requiring the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation to desist from granting permission for erection of another unipole in front of the building on top of which the petitioner has erected a unipole, Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, while there are no statutory provisions in this regard, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation ought to frame guidelines for erection of unipoles with a view to ensure that those who have been granted permission are not put to loss thereby. In the absence of violation of any statutory provision or rule, the relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. If the action of the respondents, in according permission to the second respondent to erect a unipole would cause loss to the petitioner, the only remedy available to them is by way of a civil suit before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. This Court would, ordinarily, not exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate such disputes which are not in the public law realm. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if they so choose, to avail such other remedies as are available to them in law, if need be, including by way of a Civil Suit before a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, for the relief sought for in this writ petition or for any other relief, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date:12.04.2010 Usd