IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5235 of 2008 Between: M/s. Aditya Arts rep by its Proprietrix Mrs. Mantripragada Swarnalatha, W/o. Mantripragada Vijaya Bhaskar, aged 47 years, R/o. H.No. 8-3- 214/29, Srinivasa Colony (West), Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 038. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Executive Officer, AP State Wakf Board, Hyderabad. 3 The Station House Officer, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar Police Station, 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 a direction or order or an appropriate writ more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to the respondent 1 not to dismantle the existing steel structure of the bearing and allow the petitioner to restore the removed venial cloth of display material of petitioner that is Chermas and SBI to its original position. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.RAM MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.KALPANA EKBOTE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Aditya Arts represented by its proprietrix Mrs.Mantripragada Swarnalatha with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in nature of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents, more particularly, 1st respondent not to dismantle the existing steel structure of the hoarding and allow the petitioner to restore the removed venial cloth of display material i.e. ‘Chermas’ and ‘SBI’ to its original position. 2. The petitioner is the proprietary concern, which deals in outdoor advertisement business under the name and style of ‘M/s.Aditya Arts’. She had done good number of display hoardings in different locations in twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad successfully under the norms of the 1st respondent-Corporation. One such hoarding of 40’ x 20’ size is displayed on either side in the open land belonging to the A.P.State Wakf Board-2nd respondent at the T.B. Hospital, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent-Corporation appointed a technical licentiates namely ‘Building Planners’, Esamia Bazar, Hyderabad, for inspection of the constructions and condition of the foundations of the hoardings. Necessary clearance certificate has been given to the hoarding of the petitioner. Whileso, the 1st respondent-Corporation meddled with the hoarding of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer stated supra. 3. Notice before admission has been ordered on 13.03.2008. Learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Corporation took notice and sought time for filing counter affidavit. 4. 1st respondent-Corporation 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 there is no I.S.O. certification for the hoardings of the petitioner. On 27.02.2008 the Building Planners remarked in the presence of the petitioner that ‘height to be reduced’. There is no intention on the part of the 1st respondent-Corporation to remove the vinyl cloth at the behest of the locals and that the removal process was immediately stopped on 28.02.2008 even before filing the writ petition. Hence, there is no reason for the petitioner to apprehend that the structure of the hoarding would be pulled down by the 1st respondent-Corporation. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-Corporation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner raised the hoarding after obtaining necessary permission from the 1st respondent-Corporation and unless the permission granted by the 1st respondent-Corporation is cancelled, the hoarding raised by the petitioner cannot be meddled with by the 1st respondent-Corporation. 7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- Corporation submits that the 1st respondent-Corporation will follow the due procedure in case the hoarding of the petitioner is not in accordance with the permission granted to her. 8. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage directing the 1st respondent-Corporation not to meddle with the hoarding of the petitioner except in accordance with the provisions of law. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15th July, 2008. Note: Issue C.C. within three days. B/O cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{RLD}