THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23697 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is an Advertising Agency. It wanted to erect a unipole hoarding in Koti Bus Stand. The petitioner obtained permission from the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, respondent No.4 herein, to erect a unipole in the site belonging to it. Permission was accorded by the Regional Manager, City Zone of respondent No.4. Section 420 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act (for short ‘the Act’) regulates the erection and display of hoardings in the city of Hyderabad. No such activity shall be undertaken without specific permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, respondent No.1 herein. The petitioner submitted application to respondent No.1 on 25.06.2008 and thereafter, on 15.10.2009 with a request to accord permission to erect a unipole. For quite some time, the application was kept pending. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.No.11465 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of on 27.10.2010 directing respondent No.1 to pass orders on the application. Accordingly orders were passed on 04.09.2010 rejecting the application of the petitioner. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the reasons furnished by respondent No.1 in rejecting the application are totally untenable and the reasons of safety are pressed into service only to cover up its disinclination to grant permission to the petitioner at any cost. It is also urged that respondent No.1 did not take any steps at all against respondent No.5, who erected a joint structure in the same locality, that too without permission. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the area in which the petitioner proposed to erect a unipole hoarding is a Bus Stand where the people walk right under the proposed hoarding, and would pose threat to the safety of quite large number of commuters. It is stated that respondent No.5 erected the hoarding without any permission and the hoarding has been removed after issuing notice, dated 26.03.2011, referable to Section 626 of the Act followed by an order, dated 05.04.2001. Heard Sri V.Hariharan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr.Y.Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri B.V.V.S.Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. In the recent past, the advertising industry has become prominent in the city of Hyderabad as in any other place in the country. Naturally, the activity of erecting hoardings at prominent places is proving to be beneficial for the agencies. The petitioner made an endeavour to erect a unipole in Koti Bus Stand area and respondent No.4 had given its consent for erection of unipole in its place. Section 420 of the Act mandates that no sky sign or hoarding shall be put or erect without specific and written permission from respondent No.1. The petitioner submitted application way back in the year 2008. For quite some time, there was inaction on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2. On a direction issued by this Court, they passed the impugned order. The only reason mentioned in the impugned order is that the hoarding if erected would pose threat to the safety of quite large number or commuters. The petitioner does not have any fundamental right to insist that it be accorded permission to erect a hoarding. Further, respondent No.1 has the discretion to accord or deny permission depending upon the various factors that are relevant for the activity. It is not uncommon that the hoardings of such size are vulnerable to gales or strong winds and there are instances where the hoardings have fallen, causing loss to life and property. The precaution is required to be more where the movement of persons is dense or frequent. Respondent No.1 has expressed its view that it is not at all safe to have a hoarding of such nature in the locality concerned and this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority. The petitioner has not attributed any mala fides to respondent No.1. When grounds of safety are pleaded, the Court cannot ignore them. The plea of the petitioner that it would ensure proper safety and only on being satisfied without the strength thereof, respondent No.1 may accord permission, would no doubt seem to be attractive. However, the view expressed by respondent No.1 cannot be brushed aside. It is no doubt true that respondent No.5 has erected a huge hoarding in the premises belonging to A.P. Vidya Vidhana Parishad, respondent No.3 herein, almost in the same locality and has same features as the proposed hoarding of the petitioner. The petitioner had a genuine grievance about the erection of such hoarding by respondent No.5. On finding that respondent No.5 brought into existence a hoarding without there being permission, this Court took exception. It is brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.5 erected the hoarding without permission and the notice referable to Section 636 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2011. It is stated that the hoarding has since been removed by taking the police help. Therefore, the complaint of the petitioner that there was discrimination of approach on the part of respondent No.1 ceases to exist. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. It is directed that respondent No.1 shall ensure that respondent No.5 shall not bring into existence any hoarding without any specific permission. If for any reason permission is accorded to respondent No.5, the case of the petitioner shall also be considered along with it. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.18.04.2011. kdl