Telangana High Court
The Pvs Ads. vs The Narsingi Municipality on 30 April, 2024
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
Writ Petition Nos.9635, 11717 and 11721 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
Since the issue raised in these Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order.
2. These Writ Petitions are filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the impugned notices dt.06.04.2024, which were received by the petitioners on 10.04.2024 and 19.04.2024, respectively, and to quash the same, as being bad in law and violative of principles of natural justice, apart from principle of 'Legitimate Expectation' and also violation of Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India, with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent from taking steps to remove the Cantilever advertisement boards.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.Malla Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Development appearing for respondent No.2 in all the Writ Petitions and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petitions are taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage. 2
4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioners approached the respondents-authorities and were granted licences for display of advertisements/for erection of Cantilevers.
5. Petitioners further contend that the respondents-authorities have initially granted permissions for the period from 28.11.2022 to 31.03.2023 and 10.02.2022 and 31.03.2022, respectively, and thereafter, the licences were renewed upto 31.03.2024.
6. Petitioners further contend that on expiry of licence period on 31.03.2024, they had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted a request for renewal on 08.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 and that the respondents-authorities without considering the said applications/ request made by the petitioners seeking renewal, had issued proceedings dt.06.04.2024, received by the petitioners on 10.04.2024 and 19.04.2024, by anti-dating the proceedings, so as to appear the same having been issued prior to the petitioners approaching the respondents-authorities and submitting the applications seeking renewal.
7. It is also the further case of the petitioners that on account of the respondents-authorities granting initial permissions and also renewing the same upto 31.03.2024, a 'Legitimate Expectation' has been created in favour of the petitioners for continuation of the aforesaid Cantilevers for providing advertisement services to the petitioners' clients. 3
8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent submits that as per the conditions of the licence issued, the licencee is required to seek for renewal of the licence seven days before the date of expiry of the permission or well in advance through online.
9. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that since the petitioners did not seek for renewal of the permission through online before seven days of expiry of the permission or well in advance, the authorities on expiry of the licence period i.e. 31.03.2024, have issued the impugned proceedings dt.06.04.2024 directing the petitioners to remove the advertisement boards erected by them within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notices.
10. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the impugned notices have been served one Mr.Avinash Reddy, who had affixed his signature in receipt of the same, and thus, the claim of the petitioners of the notices being antedated is incorrect statement and in fact, on the other hand, the petitioners having received the notices dt.06.04.2024, had approached the respondents-authorities and submitted letters dt.08.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 seeking renewal of the licences granted. Since, the authorities cannot grant any licence manually on account of the online process put in place, the said request of the petitioners cannot be considered.
4
11. By stating as above, learned Standing Counsel thus submits that since, the licenses granted in favour of the petitioners having expired on 31.01.2024, the petitioners are required to remove the advertisement boards erected pursuant to the permission granted earlier and as the petitioners had failed to remove the same, the authorities have issued the impugned proceedings and had given them seven days time to remove the same.
12. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
13. Though the petitioners claim of principle of 'Legitimate Expectation' being attracted, it is to be noted that the petitioners can not seek to invoke the principle of 'Legitimate Expectation', unless there has been a promise by the State, on the basis of which, the petitioners having acted upon. It is not shown to this Court of the respondents-authorities making any commitment or promise whereby the petitioners are required to make an investment and the petitioners having made such investment, pursuant to the said promise, and the respondents-authorities now trying to deny the petitioners of the benefit, whereby the petitioners can invoke the principle of 'Legitimate Expectation'.
5
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The State Of West Bengal v/s. Gitashree Dutta (Dey) 1, while elucidating the principle of 'Legitimate Expectation', held that in the absence of any policy being framed by the State, on the basis of which, the petitioners having made investment and thereafter, the State withdrawing such policy resulting in loss, the ground of 'Legitimate Expectation' cannot be pleaded.
15. In the facts of the present cases, it is not shown to this Court of any policy of the State, whereby the licences are granted for erection of advertisement board being for a fixed period of time and contrary to the said period the licence being withdrawn. On the contray, the licences that have been issued in favour of the petitioners clearly mention the period for which they have been granted and also the requirement of the petitioners approaching the respondents-authorities and making applications seven days before the expiry of the date of permission or earlier seeking for renewal of the licences.
16. Since, the terms and conditions of the licences granted in favour of the petitioners clearly mention the licence period, in the considered view of this Court, the petitioners cannot be permitted to invoke the principle of 'Legitimate Expectation'.
1 2022 INSC 453 6
17. Further, as seen from the conditions by which licences have been granted to the petitioners stipulate that the petitioners are required to make online applications for renewal seven days before the expiry of permission or well in advance and inasmuch as it is not shown to this Court of the petitioners making applications through online, before 31.03.2024, this Court is of the view that the petitioners on the basis of the letters submitted on 08.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 cannot seek for grant of renewal after the licence period has expired as a matter of right.
18. Thus, for the said reason also, the action of the respondents- authorities in issuing the impugned proceedings dt.06.04.2024 cannot be found fault with.
19. Thus, the Writ Petitions as filed are devoid of any merit and they are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these writ petitions shall stand closed.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:30.04.2024 GJ 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition Nos.9635, 11717 and 11721 of 2024 30.04.2024 GJ 8