THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.319 of 2010 August 04, 2010 Between: M/s.Prakash Arts, represented by its Chief Operating Officer, H.V.Surendranath, S/o.Late Venkata Krishnaiah … Appellant And Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Executive Director, Sri Syed Iftequar Mehdi, S/o.Late S.Y.Nawab And others ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.319 of 2010 ORDER OF THE COURT: The first respondent obtained permission from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) for erecting Uni-pole advertisement hoardings (Uni-pole) in the property allegedly belonging to the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Board. Indisputably necessary permission was obtained from the Wakf Board. The permission granted by the Commissioner of GHMC was set aside by the Government vide Memo No.2254/F2/ 2007, dated 22.9.2008 in purported exercise of their powers under Section 679 of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (GHMC Act). The first respondent assailed the same in W.P.No.22326 of 2008. The appellant herein was arrayed as sixth respondent for the reason that the appellant had made representation to the Government against the grant of the permission by the Commissioner on 15.3.2007. The learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 05.11.2009 allowed the writ petition observing as under. The petitioner as well as the 6th respondent have erected hoardings of different categories in various parts of Hyderabad, duly obtaining permission from the concerned authority. The only objection raised by the 6th respondent for Uni-Pole Hoardings erected by the petitioner at Lower Tankbund is that, condition NO.23 of the permission disallows erection of such hoardings in places like temples, mosques, churches and buildings of historic and heritage importance. The aggrieved party, in case of violation of such condition, if at all, would be concerned place of worship or the owner of the building. Being a rival businessman, the 6th respondent cannot have any say in the matter. When the wakf board has chosen to accord permission, the 6th respondent has absolutely no basis to complain against it. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The permission granted in favour of the petitioner is upheld. There shall be no order as to costs. In this appeal, the Senior Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the first respondent as well as the Standing Counsel for the other respondents made submissions, on a wide ranging canvass. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, however, we do not feel it necessary to advert to all those contentions. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that a rival businessman i.e., appellant herein could not have been an aggrieved person to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the Government and that it is for the owner of the building or the authority having control over the place of worship to complain about the violation of condition No.23 of the permission granted by the GHMC. Be it noted that condition No.23 prohibits erection of Uni-pole in places of worship like temples, mosques, graveyards, churches and buildings of national importance. Section 679 of the GHMC Act confers suo motu revisional powers on the Government. They may for the purpose of satisfying as to correctness, legality, propriety or regularity of any proceedings of the Commissioner call for, examine the record and pass such orders as are deemed fit with reference thereto. Having regard to the language of the provision, it is always possible that even if the power under Section 679(1) is exercised pursuant to an application of an aggrieved person, still it could only be suo motu exercise of power not by way of entertaining appeal. Further, when the permission granted in their favour was set aside by the Government, it is the first respondent who invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the question of locus may not be significant. As the learned Single Judge has not gone into various other aspects of the matter, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the writ petition to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration and disposal. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the learned Single Judge having determination to deal with the matter, after obtaining necessary order from Hon’ble the Chief Justice. The writ appeal stands disposed of accordingly. ________________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) _______________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) August 04, 2010 YS