Karnataka High Court
Signpost India Limited vs The Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike on 20 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:22530
WP No. 26349 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 26349 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SIGNPOST INDIA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 202, PRESSMAN HOUSE
NEAR SANTACRUZ, AIRPORT TERMINAL
VILE PARLE EAST, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA
INDIA - 400099.
AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE
AT NO.18, PRITHAM PLAZA
YELLAMAN KOIL STREET
OFF KENSINGTON ROAD, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
AND ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
Digitally signed MR. RAVI REDDY.
by CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. MR. SHRIPAD PRAHLAD ASHTEKAR
KARNATAKA S/O MR. PRAHLAD ASHTEKAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT 903, STERLING SEA FACE
ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI
MUMBAI - 400 018.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ANANT MANDAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
MS. SHREEDEVI K.B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:22530
WP No. 26349 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BBMP HEAD OFFICE, CORPORATION CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 002.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
2. THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE/ADVERTISEMENT), BBMP
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1 AND R-2;
SMT.SPOORTHY.V., HCGP FOR R-3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
NOTICE DATED 13.09.2024 BEARING NO.
AC(ADVT)/PR/489/2024-25 (PACKAGE B) ISSUED BY THE
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
(REVENUE/ADVERTISEMENT) AT ANNEXURE-Y AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024 bearing No. -3- NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR AC(Advt)/PR/489/2024-25 issued by the Office of the Special Commissioner, which are produced at Annexures-Y and Z. By way of this petition, the petitioner-a registered company engaged in the advertising business - seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner's legitimate right to erect and maintain variable messaging display advertising panels, in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise recorded in W.P. No. 17728/2021. The petitioner also seeks a consequential writ or direction mandating the respondents to issue completion certificates in respect of the installations referred to in its letter dated 28.08.2024 bearing No. SIPL/071/2023-24 (Annexure-U).
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
On 03.03.2018, respondent No.1-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)-issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) vide Tender Notification No. EE/TEC/TEND/15/2017- -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR 18, inviting bids for the construction and maintenance of new police sentry boxes (popularly known as police chowkis) under a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) model, permitting commercial advertisements in lieu of construction, for a concession period of 20 years. The tender was floated on the E-procurement portal. The petitioner company was declared as the successful bidder for Packages B and C comprising 195 and 194 locations respectively.
3. Pursuant to the award of the tender, the petitioner and BBMP entered into two distinct agreements on 01.03.2019 for the construction of new police booths and traffic umbrellas under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, in exchange for commercial advertisement rights for a term of 20 years. Based on the said agreements, BBMP issued work orders requiring the petitioner to complete the construction within 12 months. However, while the project was ongoing, BBMP directed the petitioner to dismantle certain variable messaging -5- NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR display panels, alleging that their installation violated the terms of the agreement.
4. Subsequently, BBMP called upon the petitioner to execute modified and supplementary agreements for Packages B and C. Despite these changes, the petitioner claims to have satisfactorily completed and commissioned the construction of police sentry booths and advertisement poles at ten locations. Aggrieved by BBMP's communication/order dated 31.03.2021, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 17728/2021. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2022 seeking a direction to BBMP to issue completion certificates in respect of six completed locations. This Court, by a reasoned order, allowed the said application and directed BBMP to issue the certificates for the six police sentry booths and the corresponding variable messaging display panels.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Alleging non-compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No. 17728/2021, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No. 887/2022. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise before this Court in W.P. No. 17728/2021. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner was permitted to erect and maintain four independent digital advertising variable display panels, each measuring 3.75 square meters, located at a minimum distance of 100 feet from traffic signals, in areas where the police booths were installed. The exact locations were to be determined by mutual consent.
6. The present writ petition is filed contending that, notwithstanding the terms of the compromise and the permissions granted therein, the impugned notices have been issued directing the petitioner to remove all advertisements and structures erected on public footpaths and roads within seven days, citing violations of Section -7- NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020, and the BBMP Advertisement Bye-laws, 2018. The petitioner asserts that such directions are not only arbitrary but also contrary to the understanding reached between the parties and recorded in judicial proceedings.
7. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner- company and the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vikram Huilgol appearing for the respondent-BBMP.
8. Before adverting to the merits of the controversy, this Court finds it apposite to extract the relevant portions of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise filed by the parties in W.P. No. 17728/2021, which forms the foundation for the petitioner's claim in the present proceedings:
"JOINT MEMORANDUM OF COMPROMISE UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH ORDER XXIII RULE 3 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Petitioners and the Respondents jointly submit as follows:-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking inter alia the following reliefs:
A. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents herein to permit the Petitioners to restore/erect the advertising variable messaging display panels at the Schedule Locations, in accordance with the terms of the Supplementary Agreements dated 29.06.2021 bearing No. EE/TEC/AG/12/2021-22 and No. EE/TEC/AG/13/2021-22 respectively (at Annexures M1 and M2) B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the Respondents to cease and desist from interfering with the lawful rights of the Petitioner to erect and maintain the advertising variable messaging display panels at the schedule locations, in accordance with the terms of the Supplementary Agreements dated 29.06.2021 (at Annexures M1 and M2) OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE B-1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the Order dated 31.03.2021 bearing No. COMM/PRS(1)/382/2020-2021 issued by the Respondent No. 1 (at Annexure K), and all further proceedings pursuant thereto;
B-2. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to strictly comply with the terms of the Original Agreements dated 01.03.2019 bearing Nos. EE/RI-TEC/AG/26/18-19 and No. EE/RI-TEC/AG/27/18-19 (at Annexures C1 and C2) and permit the Petitioner to erect and maintain the advertising display boards at the Schedule Locations, pursuant thereto; C. Direct the Respondent No. 1 to pay costs/damages towards the illegal removal of the advertising variable messaging display panels erected by the Petitioner; D. Issue any other such appropriate writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit including the -9- NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR grant of exemplary costs, in the interests of justice and equity.
2. Vide Order dated 29.09.2021, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant an Interim Order on the following terms:
"Sri. V. Sreenidhi, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1. Learned Additional Government Advocate waives notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3 BBMP. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is directed to serve requisite sets of writ petition papers upon the aforesaid learned counsel, forthwith. The petitioners are before this Court seeking a direction to permit the petitioners to restore/erect advertising variable messaging display panels at the schedule locations.
The petitioners were the successful bidders in terms of a notice inviting tender for construction of Police Chowki in the city of Bangalore, coming within the precincts of the BBMP. The BBMP enters into a contract with the petitioners.
It transpires that a social activist raised an objection with regard to fixing of the advertising display panels within 1 km of the Polish Chowkis. Based upon the said complaint, an office order is passed by the BBMP on 31.03.2021, contending that the clause with regard to advertisement space in the contract was inserted out of inadvertence and have sought to remove the clause, which would amount to unilateral novation of the contract, is hit by the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Therefore, the said order dated 31.03.2020, insofar it directs the removal of the said clause and all further proceedings taken thereto, shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 07.10.2021."
3. Pursuant to the Interim Order dated 29.09.2021 passed by this Hon'ble Court, the Petitioners continued to perform their obligations and set up the Police Sentry Boxes at the Schedule Locations in terms of the Original Agreements dated 01.03.2019, and to request completion certificates in terms of the work done. It is relevant to note that, in accordance with the terms of the Original Agreements
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR dated 01.03.2019, the Petitioners were only permitted to advertise on the advertising variable messaging display panels after the issuance of completion certificates by the Respondent No. 1 herein.
4. The Petitioners have filed I.A. No. 1/2022 in W.P. No. 17728/2021 dated 29.01.2022 seeking a direction to the Respondents to expeditiously issue completion certificates in respect of 6 Police Sentry Boxes and advertising variable messaging display panels erected, and 20 Police Sentry Boxes and advertising variable messaging display panels ready to be erected by the Petitioner
5. Vide Order dated 25.02.2022, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to dispose of I.A. No. 1/2022 in W.P. No. 17728/2021, on the following terms:
"Sri. H. Devendrappa learned counsel appearing for the BBMP submits that the completion certificate cannot be issued in favour of the petitioners since the petitioners have not installed the static or digital advertising display on the police sentry box as specified under the supplementary agreement dated 29.07.2021
2. Sri. Adithya Sondhi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the supplementary agreement dated 29.07.2021 is impugned in this petition and this Court by order dated 29.09.2021 has stayed the operation of the order dated 31.03.2020 insofar as it directs removal of the said clause and all further proceedings taken thereto. This interim order is still in force.
3. Hence, pending consideration of this Writ Petition, the respondent-BBMP is directed to issue completion certificate in respect of six police sentry boxes and variable display panels erected and twenty police sentry boxes and variable messaging display panels ready to be erected by petitioner No.1 as detailed in the schedule to the I.A. No.1/2022, within one week from today, subject to the result of the Writ Petition.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR Accordingly, Ι.Α.Νο.1/2022 is disposed List this matter on 16.03.2022."
6. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioners and the Respondents engaged in discussions to amicably settle the matter. Thereafter the Respondent No. 1 herein filed a Statement of Facts dated 26.05.2023 under Rule 21 of the Karnataka High Court Writ Proceeding Rules seeking disposal of the matter with the following suggestion.
"The Respondent further submitted that in order to overcome the traffic hazard and in the interest of general public, the police department have given a suggestion that instead of installing 15sq mtr. Display sign board at one place, smaller size digital sign board in total not exceeding 15. Sq. mtr., can be installed within on kilo meter from the police chowky; is expected that it will not affect the smooth flow of traffic and not cause hindrance/obstruction to the vehicle drivers. Thus, considering the suggestion of the police and also on scientific aspect for the traffic movement, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to install 3.75 sq. mtr., digital sign boards in four places in the same circle instead on one big 15 sq. mtr. Digital sign board."
7. The Petitioners and the Respondents have engaged in further talks to amicably and finally settle the dispute and as such, have arrived at the following terms:
A. The Respondents will permit the Petitioners to erect and maintain 4 nos. of separate advertising variable display panels of 3.75 sq. mtr. size each, 100ft away from the traffic signal where the police sentry booths are erected, as determined by mutual consent of the parties, at each of the Schedule Locations;
B. The Respondents will issue completion certificates in a timely manner, and within a period of not more than 3 days from the intimation of the Petitioners regarding the setting up of the Police Sentry Booths and advertising variable display panels, and on a per Police Sentry Booth and advertising variable display panels basis;
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR C. The Petitioner will be entitled to utilise the advertising variable display panels in terms of the Original Agreements dated 01.03.2019.
D. In compliance with the Order dated 25.02.2022, the Respondents will issue completion certificates in respect of 6 locations already erected, specifically, Vijaynagar Bus Stand, Police Thimmaiah Junction, Cash Pharma Junction, Richmond Junction, Goraguntepalya Junction (Taj Vivanta) and Apera Junction, within a period of 3 days;
E. That the commencement of the contractual obligations vis-à-vis the Petitioner shall be from the date of issuance of the completion certificate.
F. That the period from the execution of the Original Agreements dated 01.03.2019 bearing Nos. EE/RI. TEC/AG/26/18-19 and No. EE/RI-TEC/AG/27/18-19 (at Annexures C1 and C2 to the Writ Petition) to the present date shall stand excluded in computing the period of the Contract, and that the term of the Agreement shall begin on the date of issuance of the completion certificates in respect of the 6 locations already erected (detailed at clause 7(D) to the present Compromise. G. That the terms of the Original Agreements dated 01.03.2019 bearing Nos. EE/RI-TEC/AG/26/18-19 and No. EE/RI-TEC/AG/27/18-19 (at Annexures C1 and C2 to the Writ Petition) will bind the parties in all respects, except to the extent stated in the abovementioned terms of settlement.
8. Further it is accepted by the Petitioner that any Contempt Petitions filed before this Hon'ble Court arising out of this Writ Petition will be withdrawn in terms of this compromise petition entered between the parties. WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to record the compromise/ settlement between the parties, and dispose of the Writ Petition on the terms mentioned above, in the interests of justice."
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. This Court also deems it fit to cull out Clause 11.3 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Outdoor Signage and Public Messaging Bye-Laws, 2018 (for short "Bye laws"), which reads as under:
"11.3. The by-laws shall not apply to Public- Private Partnership Projects creating Civic infrastructure like bus shelter, pedestrian walk-way, sky-ways, sky- walks, Road medians and such other by private parties using their own funds, in which advertisement facilities are given buy the BBMP, to defray the cost incurred by the parties."
10. This Court also deems it fit to cull out Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020 based on which these two impugned notices are issued contrary to the terms and conditions of the tender notification. The same is extracted, which reads as under:
"158. Prohibition of advertisements without written permission of the Chief Commissioner.-(1) No advertisement shall, after the levy of the fee under section 157 has been determined upon by the corporation, be erected, exhibited, fixed or retained upon or over any land, building, wall, hoarding or structure within the city or shall be displayed in any manner whatsoever in any place without the written permission of the Chief Commissioner.
(2) The Chief Commissioner shall not grant such permission if-.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
(i) the advertisement contravenes any bye-law made by the corporation; or
(ii) the fee, if any, due in respect of the advertisement has not been paid.
(3) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), in the case of an advertisement liable to the advertisement fee, the Chief Commissioner shall grant permission for the period to which the payment of the fee relates and no fee shall be charged in respect of such permission:
Provided that, the provisions of this section shall not apply to any advertisement erected, exhibited, fixed or retained on the premises of a railway relating to the business of a railway."
11. The object behind entering into PPP agreement bears substantial significance and therefore, clauses 2.2 and 2.3 of the Tender Notification would be relevant, which are extracted as under:
"2.2 Concept of Street Furniture a. Street Furniture Installations- Symbol of City Development.
BBMP has decided to provide Police Booth/Kiosk for the Health benefit and convenience of the traffic police working in traffic signals. BBMP recognizes that providing aesthetically designed and superior quality Street Furniture does not just alleviate the brand equity of the city but will also be seen as a symbol of good governance and believes that these initiatives will have intangible but long lasting benefits as they go down very well with the citizens.
b. Regular Cleaning and Maintenance BBMP also recognizes that it is very easy to take up an initiative , but the key lies in ensuring the proper
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR maintenance and upkeep of the infrastructure involved. BBMP acknowledges that to upkeep longevity of these public properties, regular cleaning, maintenance, and upkeep have to be undertaken on similar lines as our homes and offices.
There has been a shift in approach to launch PPP model projects for the provision of such facilities (Street Furniture) to the citizens, considering the failure of the contracts, which were awarded purely or partially on the basis of revenue.
Projects of such a large scale requires a lot of capital investment along with regular maintenance which itself is a labour, time and resource intensive activity. In order to ensure sustainability of these projects the PPP model is being adapted for the current Project wherein the Bidder will invest in the construction of Police Booths /Kiosks as per designs provided by the bidder in the Technical bid and duly approved by BBMP and the operation and maintenance of the same will be the Bidder's responsibility for the complete duration of the Agreement.
The vision of BBMP is to create a showcase with its own identity . Pursuant to this vision, BBMP has taken up a drive for the construction , operation and maintenance of Police Booths/Kiosks as per the list attached, to provide better services to the citizens.
BBMP will honour all contracts entered by BBMP for the operation & maintenance of Police Booths/ Kiosks, which act as a service to the citizens of the city However, all existing contracts for advertisements on BBMP land over existing Police Booths/ Kiosks will be discontinued upon their expiry. All the existing Police Booths/ Kiosks contracts shall not be renewed upon their expiry and will become a part of this Agreement under the particular Package 2.3 Project Details
(a) The intent of the Project is to Design, Build.
Operate (Maintenance) & Transfer of Police Booths/ Kiosks, as per approved design by BBMP and Traffic Police for a period of 20 (Twenty) years (hereinafter
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR referred to as the "Project" as the context may require or admit).
(b) Commissioner, BBMP has entrusted/ authorized Executive Engineer - RI-TEC, with issuing the RFP to the applicants and entering into agreements with the selected Bidders.
(c) In pursuance of the above, Executive Engineer - RI-TEC, BBMP is issuing this RFP to the applicants through e-procurement portal. Executive Engineer - RI- TEC BBMP would, consequent to the outcome of the RFP process, individually enter into agreements with the Successful Bidder for the implementation of the Project for each of the packages separately.
(d) BBMP has identified this Project to Design, Build, Operate (Maintenance) & Transfer of Police Booths/ Kiosks wherein the Bidder will invest in the construction of the Police Booths/ Kiosks as per the design submitted as part of the "Detailed Design Report submitted by the selected Bidder which would be duly approved by BBMP or any independent agency approved by BBMP. The operation and maintenance of the Police Booths/ Kiosks along with the rights towards selling of advertisement space will be under the purview of the Bidder for which Bidders have to pay an Annual Fee to BBMP.
(e) The tentative locations for the installation of the Street Police Booths/ Kiosks have bee identified by BBMP. The locations enclosed herewith as part of this RFP and can b changed as per site feasibility requirements if such necessity arises.
(f) All existing contracts with regard to the Police Booths/ Kiosks will become a part of th Project upon the expiry of their current term under the particular package. Th Concessionaire shall get the existing Police Booths/ Kiosks removed at his own cost.
(g) Terms used in this RFP which have not been defined herein, shall have the meaning ascribed thereto in the Agreement."
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. On deeper examination of the dispute between the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
(1) Whether the action of Respondent No.1-BBMP in issuing the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024 directing the petitioner company to dismantle advertisement structures, by invoking Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020, is legally sustainable,more particularly when such provisions are general in nature and are rendered inapplicable to Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) projects under Clause 11.3 of the BBMP Advertisement Bye-Laws, 2018? (2) Whether Respondent No.1-BBMP can unilaterally breach or resile from the binding contractual obligations arising from the tender awarded to the petitioner company, especially when the petitioner has substantially executed the project and made a significant capital investment of approximately Rs.55 crores, as per the PPP agreement and tender terms evidenced by Document No.1 appended to the Memo dated 19.03.2025?
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR (3) Whether the interim order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No.57990/2017, which pertains to the removal of unauthorized and illegal hoardings in Bengaluru City, can be extended to cover PPP projects--despite the fact that advertising rights in the present case emanate from a specific and lawful contract executed between the petitioner company and BBMP pursuant to a duly notified tender process?
FINDINGS ON POINTS 1 TO 3:
13. The core factual matrix surrounding the present controversy remains largely undisputed. The petitioner, pursuant to a tender notification floated by the respondent-BBMP, emerged as a successful bidder for the construction, operation, and maintenance of police booths/kiosks under the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model. The tender process was in line with a broader governmental initiative aimed at improving civic infrastructure and public-police interaction. The tender documents and the resultant agreement clearly outlined that the project would be commercially viable for the
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR private partner only through grant of advertisement rights, which were to serve as the principal means for recovery of capital investment and maintenance expenses over the 20-year concession period. This understanding was not merely implicit but was expressly incorporated into the tender conditions and the contractual documents, which form the bedrock of the relationship between the parties.
14. Upon successful award of the project, the petitioner-company entered into formal agreements with the respondent-BBMP for Packages B and C, encompassing a total of 389 designated locations. The petitioner commenced implementation of the project and, by its own assertion supported by documentary evidence, invested over ₹50 crores in developing and erecting police booths and advertising poles in compliance with the approved specifications. In the course of execution, disputes arose which led to the filing of W.P. No. 17728/2021. Significantly, this writ petition culminated in a joint memorandum of compromise, duly recorded by this Court,
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR wherein the respondent-BBMP unequivocally recognised the petitioner's right to erect and maintain variable messaging display panels at mutually agreed locations. Such a compromise, recorded in judicial proceedings, assumes the character of a binding settlement and is enforceable as a consent decree. It is therefore deeply regrettable that notwithstanding the solemnity of such judicially recorded compromise, the respondent-BBMP has sought to unilaterally disrupt the petitioner's rights through the impugned notices.
15. This Court is compelled to observe that having consciously chosen to implement a PPP framework wherein advertisement rights are not ancillary but fundamental to the financial model of the project, the respondent-BBMP cannot now extricate itself from the binding terms of the contract by invoking general statutory provisions. The attempt to rely on Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020 and the Advertisement Bye-Laws of 2018, without due regard to Clause 11.3 of the Bye-Laws which
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR carves out an express exemption for PPP projects involving civic infrastructure, amounts to a blatant overreach and distortion of legal provisions. In PPP projects, regulatory controls must yield to contractual commitments, especially when public authorities are themselves the drafters and beneficiaries of such contracts.
16. The respondent's invocation of an interim order passed by the Division Bench in W.P. No. 57990/2017, which pertained to removal of unauthorized hoardings in Bengaluru City, is equally misplaced. The said public interest litigation was directed at curbing illegal advertisements and hoardings installed without due sanction. In stark contrast, the petitioner's rights flow from a lawful, contractual engagement and are reinforced by a compromise decree of this Court. Therefore, respondent No.1's reliance on a general order passed in a PIL proceeding without contextual analysis or application to the specific facts of this case either reflects a gross
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR non-application of mind or a deliberate attempt to frustrate the petitioner's legitimate commercial rights.
17. This Court respectfully holds that the interim order passed in the PIL does not and cannot override contractual obligations undertaken by the respondent- BBMP under a PPP framework. It is a well-settled principle of law that special arrangements, particularly those arising from negotiated contracts in PPP models must prevail over general regulatory norms, unless there is express statutory prohibition. The indiscriminate application of PIL directives to contractual obligations defeats the sanctity of commercial agreements and undermines investor confidence in government-initiated infrastructure projects.
18. What is more concerning is that the petitioner- company continues to execute its contractual obligations by constructing additional police booths even at this stage, thereby fulfilling its end of the bargain. In contrast, the
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR respondent-BBMP appears unwilling to reciprocate by honouring its own commitments under the PPP agreements. Such conduct on the part of a statutory authority, which is expected to act fairly and in accordance with the rule of law, is not only indefensible but also severely prejudicial to the petitioner's commercial interests.
19. The impugned notices dated 13.09.2024, issued under Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020, are, in the considered view of this Court, legally unsustainable. Section 158 authorizes the Chief Commissioner to regulate advertisements in public spaces, but such regulatory control must operate within the bounds of contractual exceptions, particularly when the very authority has granted permissions as part of a long-term infrastructure project. The petitioner is not a casual advertiser operating without sanction, but a project partner whose advertising rights are inextricably linked to the commercial framework of a 20-year PPP agreement.
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR
20. It is thus imperative to distinguish between general advertisers and PPP concessionaires. In the present case, the advertisement rights granted to the petitioner are not standalone privileges, but integral to the project structure. The petitioner's right to recover its investment through display of advertisements is embedded within the concession framework and cannot be annulled unilaterally by applying general restrictions under the guise of regulatory oversight. The application of Section 158 and the Advertisement Bye-Laws of 2018 to the present PPP project is not only inappropriate but also contrary to the express exemption carved out under Clause 11.3 of the Bye-Laws.
21. It is also pertinent to note that the project commenced in 2019 and yet, as of date, the petitioner has been permitted to install display boards at only six locations. The respondent's failure to facilitate execution of the project in its entirety despite judicial orders and compromise agreements raises serious concerns about
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR the arbitrary and inconsistent manner in which PPP contracts are being administered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that where commercial rights and obligations are defined by contract, they must prevail over subsequent policy reinterpretations or subordinate legislation unless expressly stated otherwise.
22. In light of the above, this Court unambiguously holds that the impugned communications issued by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to remove the advertising structures are patently arbitrary, illegal, and in breach of a binding contractual framework. The actions of the respondent are thus not only violative of principles of fairness and reasonableness but also undermine the legitimacy of PPP models, which are increasingly relied upon for development of civic infrastructure. Accordingly, the impugned notices are liable to be quashed.
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR Accordingly point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
23. Conclusions:
(a) The invocation of Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020 by Respondent No.1 to direct dismantling of advertisement structures is found to be misconceived and untenable in the present context. Section 158 is a general regulatory provision governing unauthorized advertisements in public spaces and applies to standalone advertisers. In contrast, the present project arises out of a structured Public-Private Partnership (PPP) arrangement executed pursuant to a public tender, where advertising rights were expressly conferred upon the petitioner as part of a larger infrastructure development obligation. Clause 11.3 of the BBMP Outdoor Signage and Public Messaging Bye-Laws, 2018 expressly excludes PPP projects from the scope of the bye-laws where civic infrastructure is created using private funds. Therefore, the impugned action invoking general provisions is impermissible and contrary
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR to the specific regulatory exemption afforded to such PPP projects. The BBMP was not justified in invoking Section 158 of the BBMP Act, 2020 to interfere with the advertising rights of the petitioner under a PPP project governed by Clause 11.3 of the 2018 Bye-Laws.
(b) The record clearly establishes that the petitioner was declared as a successful bidder pursuant to a duly notified tender process and thereafter entered into a binding PPP agreement with BBMP. The tender and agreement terms formed a comprehensive commercial and developmental framework that included the petitioner's right to construct Police Booths/Kiosks and recover investment through advertisement display panels. The petitioner has demonstrably invested approximately Rs.55 crores and has substantially completed the civil works. Any unilateral termination or interference by BBMP at this stage, especially without following due process or citing material breach, amounts to arbitrary and mala fide action. The law is well-settled that contractual obligations,
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR particularly those arising from public tenders, cannot be defeated by ex post facto reinterpretation or administrative fiat. BBMP cannot be permitted to breach or renege from its contractual obligations when the petitioner has substantially performed and invested heavily in reliance upon the terms of a government- sanctioned tender and agreement.
(c) The interim order passed in W.P. No.57990/2017 by the Division Bench was aimed at addressing rampant illegal and unauthorized hoardings erected in violation of municipal norms. However, the case on hand stands on a distinctly different footing. The advertising rights claimed by the petitioner are not based on ad hoc permissions or stand-alone licences but stem from a PPP agreement entered into following a transparent tendering process. These rights are contractual in nature and are integral to the infrastructure project undertaken by the petitioner. It is a settled principle that general judicial orders, particularly those passed in public interest
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR litigation (PIL) proceedings, cannot override specific contractual rights unless the latter are found to be illegal or in breach of public policy, which is not the case here. The interim order in W.P. No.57990/2017 does not extend to the petitioner's case, as the rights involved flow from a legitimate and binding PPP agreement and are therefore distinguishable from unauthorized hoardings which were the subject matter of the PIL.
24. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned notices dated 13.09.2024 issued by the Office of the Special Commissioner (Revenue/Advertisement), BBMP, vide Annexures-Y and Z, are hereby quashed.
(iii) Respondent No.1-BBMP is hereby directed to strictly abide by and give effect to the terms and conditions of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise entered into between the parties in
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC:22530 WP No. 26349 of 2024 HC-KAR W.P. No. 17728/2021, which has been duly recorded by this Court.
(iv) Consequently, BBMP shall permit the petitioner to erect and maintain advertisement hoardings/display structures at locations mutually identified in accordance with the said compromise, and in line with the terms of the Public-Private Partnership Agreement executed between the parties.
(v) BBMP shall not interfere with the petitioner's rights under the said agreement, except in accordance with law and subject to the contractual framework governing the project.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21