THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11354 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is an advertising agency. This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, 2nd respondent herein in allotting the advertisement related works in different places of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to respondents 3 to 5 on nomination basis as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. It has also claimed consequential reliefs. In the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has furnished the details of the works said to have been allotted to respondents 3 to 5. The gist of the allegation made by the petitioner is that the works were allotted on nomination basis, without adopting the transparent method of inviting tenders. The petitioner contends that it is only by inviting tenders and selecting the agencies through the process of evaluation of relative merits, that fairness can be ensured. It is alleged that the Corporation did not follow the guidelines, that are followed in selecting the agencies. On behalf of respondents 1 and 2, a counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that for award of the works that are already designed and launched, agencies are selected by inviting tenders and that it is only where the pilot projects are launched, or the response to tender notice is not encouraging, that they are allotted on nomination duly verifying the capacity, eligibility and background of the agency. Heard Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The attempt of the petitioner appears to be to compel respondents 1 and 2 to have recourse to the process of inviting tenders, before the work of advertising is assigned to anyone. The respondents maintain distinction between different categories of advertisement works. Even from the facts and figures furnished by the petitioner, it is evident that respondents 1 and 2 have invited tenders way back on 12.12.2006 for assignment of advertisement related contracts. Agreements for different duration were entered into. The petitioner filed a list of locations allotted by the 2nd respondent to various agencies. Hardly there is any authenticity for it. For instance, the work of installation of closed circuit cameras is said to have been awarded in favour of Stan Power Company, Hyderabad. The petitioner states that in lieu of installation of such cameras, the agency was allotted arches at 500 junctions in the Corporation and the contract is awarded for a period of 20 years. The assessment of the petitioner is that it results in loss of 25 crores per annum to the Corporation. In their counter affidavit, the Corporation flatly denied this. It is stated that the agency was selected for installation of cameras at eight junctions and it is permitted to install advertisement boards etc., at the same junctions in such a way as not to cause any obstruction to the traffic. The agency is endowed with the liability to maintain all the installations for the duration of the contract. The Corporation reserved to it, the right to terminate the contract, if the performance is not satisfactory. The petitioner does not dispute this. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had an occasion to deal with the powers and functions of the 2nd respondent itself in the context of selection of agencies for the works of this nature. In M&T Consultants, Secunderabad vs. S.Y.Nawanb and another[1], it upheld the award of contract for a period of 20 years in favour of an agency for installation of names of streets, house numbers etc., on nomination. In all fairness, the Corporation has come forward with the plea that once the pilot project emerges as the successful venture, the further allotment of works would be only by inviting tenders. It has already been mentioned that wherever the works have already been launched, the agencies were selected only by inviting tenders. The other limb of the grievance of the petitioner is about the award of contract in relation to installation of advertisement boards on road dividers. The record discloses that the Corporation awarded the contract for a length of 103 kilo meters, by inviting tenders. The average revenue derived therefor is Rs.4,53,000/-, whereas 9.48 kilo meters awarded on nomination basis yielded Rs.10,65,000/- per kilo meter. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any arbitrariness or illegality on the part of respondents 1 and 2 in awarding the works to various agencies. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. It is however made clear that wherever the works were allotted to agencies on nomination basis, the further allotment thereof for subsequent period shall be only through the tender process and not by nomination. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 02.11.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.11354 of 2009 Date: 02.11.2009 JSU [1] 2003(6) ALD 99 (SC)