IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 3746 of 2008 Between: M/s. Prakash Arts, Rep by its C.E.O. C.D.V. Subba Rao, S/o. C.D.V. Prakash Rao, H.No. 3-6-473/1, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND The Defense Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle, West Maredpally, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 pass appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly writ of mandamus by declaring the action of respondent in causing damage to the petitioner hoardings as illegal and arbitrary and set aside the letter dated 20-12-2007. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.V.ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by M/s.Prakash Arts rep. by its C.E.O.- C.D.V.Subbarao with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Defence Estate Officer, Andhra Pradesh Circle, West Maredpally, Secunderabad-respondent in causing damage to the petitioner’s hoardings as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the letter dated 20.12.2007. 2. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent with regard to display of advertisement hoardings in Secunderabad Cantonment area. When the petitioner put up hoardings contrary to the terms of agreement, a notice has been issued to the petitioner to remove the structures. Thereupon, the petitioner requested the respondent for joint inspection. Apprehending removal of the hoardings, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. An interim order came to be passed on 22.02.2008 vide W.P.M.P.No.4886 of 2008. The respondent filed WVMP No.2219 of 2008 with a prayer to vacate the interim order dated 22.02.2008. The respondent filed counter-affidavit along with the said vacate petition. S.Balakrishna, Defence Estates Officer, A.P. Circle, Secunderabad, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner being the highest tenderer in respect of Site No.41 and 42 in GLR Sy.No.699, necessary permission for erection and display of advertising hoardings have been issued vide letter No.21/66/XXXIX/16, dated 12.01.2007 and the sites were handed over to the petitioner on 12.03.2007. The petitioner erected structures in Site No.42 in GLR Sy.No.699 violating the condition No.15 of the tender document. The conditions laid down in the tender, which are accepted by the petitioner without any reservation whatsoever, are: i. Condition No.26 of the Terms and conditions of the tender, the size of the hoarding is restricted to 05 mtrs. Vertical in height and 12 meters horizontal in length and the base shall be parallel to the ground. Each hoarding should be separately erected and should not be joined to another hoarding either horizontally or vertically. ii. Condition No.27 “it is detected that the size of the hoarding has exceeded the above standard size of 12 meters x 5 meters, the Defence Estates Officer shall be at liberty either to terminate the licence for breach of terms and conditions or levy additional licence fee in two folds from the date of commencement of licence till its expiry. His decision shall be final. iii. Condition 30, all hoarding shall be displayed with the number allotted above along with the firm’s name in the board on the right hand bottom corner for identification. iv. Condition No.31 of the tender orientation/position of the board shall not be changed except in case specifically mentioned in the site plan or hoardings and with specific written concurrence of the Licensor. This office has not accorded any permission or sanction to deviate from any of the terms and conditions. The petitioner erected Uni-Pole structure, displayed two advertisement boards, changed the orientation/direction of the visibility from Parallel to SP Road to 90 degree cutting the SP Road, size etc. The above deviations are brought to the notice of the petitioner number of times telephonically and orally. Since the efforts made by the respondent to make the petitioner to bring the hoarding as per the terms of tender conditions proved to be futile, notice impugned in the writ petition came to be issued. 4. The petitioner filed reply affidavit. It is stated in the reply affidavit that the petitioner did not violate the conditions of the tender document as alleged by the respondent, but only for structural stability purpose, basing on the engineer report, the petitioner erected the structure and there is no loss to the respondent. 5. When the WVMP came up for consideration, with the consent of the learned counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as soon as the petitioner received the notice dated 20.12.2007, he requested the respondent for joint inspection with regard to the position of the hoardings and since the respondent did not oblige for joint inspection, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner put up the hoardings contrary to the tender conditions and therefore, the hoardings put up by the petitioner are liable to be pull down. 8. I have gone through the letter dated 20.12.2007 whereunder certain deviations have been pointed out by the respondent. The petitioner addressed a letter dated 20.02.2008 to the respondent requesting for joint inspection. There seems to be no joint inspection subsequent to the request made by the petitioner under letter dated 20.02.2008. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to have joint inspection and in the joint inspection, if it is found that the petitioner made deviations in putting up the hoardings, the petitioner shall change the hoardings in tune with the tender conditions. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:13th August, 2008. cs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}