Allowed

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC25 Apr 2012WP/12193/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner-advertising agency challenged a municipal corporation's order rejecting renewal for its second hoarding board. The court held that rejecting the application without cancelling the earlier permission or issuing prior notice violated due process, setting aside the impugned letter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned letter dated 10.04.2012 set aside; 1st respondent directed to pass fresh orders after due notice to petitioner and 2nd respondent.

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.12193 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

Ad Age Outdoor Advertising Private Limited, Rep.by its Director, Mr.Syed Iftequar Ahmed. … Petitioner

¶8

and The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, CC Complex, Tank Bund Road, Hyderabad and others.

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.12193 of 2012

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the material on record.

¶14

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a 25 year old outdoor advertising agency based at Hyderabad and carries on the business of advertising contracts including the erection of hoardings and Uni-poles and provides its services to companies and individuals for the purpose of advertisement of products.

¶15

It is stated that the petitioner was permitted to install and erect Uni-pole and one board vide proceedings dated 27.05.2006 by the

¶16

1^st respondent and thereafter, also permitted to exhibit the second board vide proceedings dated 30.12.2010. It is further stated that the 2^nd respondent, who is a business rival of the petitioner, filed W.P. No.225 of 2011 questioning the action of the

¶17

1^st respondent in granting permission to the petitioner to erect two boards on the said Uni-pole at the Sailing Club Annexe on the ground that it was blocking the visibility of its hoarding at H.No.5-4-2-3 Takia Amanullah Shah, Secunderabad. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 15.03.2011 observing that the limited grievance of the petitioner therein, who is the

¶18

2^nd respondent herein, as to the visibility of its hoardings being blocked can be taken into account by the Corporation after 31.03.2011,

¶19

in the event of there being valid permission in favour of the 3^rd respondent therein, who is the petitioner herein, beyond that date. While the matter stood thus, three days before the date of annual renewal, for payment of regulatory fees and submission of Form II A for the year 2012-13, the petitioner received the notice dated 28.03.2012 from the 1^st respondent informing that

¶20

(i) no renewal will be considered for the 2^nd board of 40’ x 40’ size for the year 2012-2013 onwards, i.e. from the new financial year of 01.04.2012 and (ii) directing the petitioner to remove the said board. In this regard, it is stated that these directions appear to be based on an alleged inspection and observation by the

¶21

1^st respondent that the hoardings of the 2^nd respondent located behind the Uni-pole at Sailing Club belonging to the petitioner, is being obstructed. The petitioner was not given notice of such alleged inspection, if any at all conducted, the persons conducting inspection were not named and the date of alleged inspection was specified in such notice. But, eventually, issued letter dated 10.04.2012 informing the petitioner to remove the second board and directed to apply for renewal of Uni-pole with single board. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an outdoor advertising agency got permission for erection of single board vide proceedings dated 27.05.2006 and thereafter, for second board vide proceedings dated 30.12.2010. She further submitted that having got permission from the

¶23

1^st respondent to erect the second board vide proceedings dated 30.12.2010, the petitioner erected the second board. Without canceling the said permission, the 1^st respondent cannot reject the application of the petitioner for renewal directing to apply for renewal of Uni-pole with single board. She further submitted that it appears that

¶24

the 2^nd respondent herein filed a petition before this Court and pursuant to the orders passed therein the

¶25

1^st respondent authorities, without following due process of law and without issuing any notice, rejected the application of the petitioner applied for renewal directing the petitioner to apply for renewal of Unipole with single board for AIN No.NZ-18-02493 for the year 2012-13 duly fulfilling all the requirements. On account of this impugned letter, the petitioner is restrained to accept having the second Uni-pole at his premises, because of the rejection of the renewal. She further submitted that the alleged inspection conducted by the officials of the 1^st respondent,

¶26

without there being any notice to the petitioner and thereafter, unilaterally, taken decision to restrain the petitioner from having the second board at the petitioner’s place by rejecting the renewal. Therefore, the impugned letter dated 10.04.2012 is liable to be

¶27

set aside and consequently direct the 1^st respondent to make renewal as applied for.

¶28

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent would submit that as it is found that the petitioner erected the second board on the existing Uni-ple is disrupting the view of the existing hoardings of the 2^nd respondent and the same is in violation of the condition No.20 i.e. the board should not cause any obstruction to any other existing or approval hoarding in the area. Therefore, the request of the petitioner was rejected with a direction to apply for renewal of Uni-pole with single board for the year 2012-13 duly fulfilling all the requirements. Therefore, there is nothing wrong on the part of the 1^st respondent in issuing the impugned letter dated 10.04.2012.

¶29

As could be seen from the material on record, it is evident that the 1^st respondent issued impugned letter dated 10.04.2012, which

¶30

reads as under.

¶31

“With reference to the letter 6^th cited, M/s Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt.Ltd., is informed that, the 2^nd board erected on the existing Uni-pole is disrupting the view of the existing hoardings of M/s Prakash Arts and is in violation of the Condition No.20 i.e. the board should not cause any obstruction to any other existing or approval hoarding in the area.

¶32

As such, the request of the agency is hereby rejected with a direction to apply for renewal of Unipole with single board for AIN No.NZ-18-02493 for the year 2012-13 duly full filling all the requirements.

¶33

The following enclosures submitted along with the letter 6^th cited, are returned herewith.”

¶34

It is a specific averment of the petitioner that he got permission for erecting the second board vide proceedings dated 30.12.2010 of the 1^st respondent and without canceling the said permission and without issuing any notice and following due process of law, the 1^st respondent issued impugned letter dated 10.04.2012. It is evident from the aforesaid impugned letter that there is no iota of issuance of any notice or cancellation of the permission granted for erection of second board before passing the impugned letter. Under those circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned letter dated 10.04.2012 is liable to be set aside.

¶35

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the impugned letter dated 10.04.2012 is set aside and the

¶36

1^st respondent is directed to pass appropriate afresh orders on the representation dated 31.03.2012, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after due notice to the petitioner as

¶37

well as to the 2^nd respondent. Till such time, there cannot be any disturbance to the signboards of the petitioner.

¶38

With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶40

Date: 25.04.2012 LSK

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director v. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rama Subba Reddy Vs The District Collector

V.G.Rama Krishna, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

S. Sriramappa , Sreeramulu Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, Vs The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority