Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ad Space Advertising Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Ap on 9 July, 2025
APHC010036272024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 2015/2024
Between:
1. AD SPACE ADVERTISING PVT. LTD. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
M. PURUSHOTHAMA NAIDU, AGE- 51 YEARS. S/O.
RANGAIAH NAIDU R/O PLOT NO. 5. ROAD NO.5, FILM
NAGAR SITE-2, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETAIY FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, AP.
2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRAFFIC
DIVISION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
2
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV
WRIT PETITION NO: 2329/2024
Between:
1. AD SPACE ADVERTISING PVT LTD, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
M. PURUSHOTHAMA NAIDU, AGE 51 YEARS. S/O.
RANGAIAH NAIDU, R/O PLOT NO. 5. ROAD NO.5, FILM
NAGAR SITE-2, HYDERABAD.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOR
MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, AP.
2. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. DEPUTY CITY PLANNER, TIRUPATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
TIRUPATI.
4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI
DISTRICT.
5. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TRAFFIC DIVISION,
TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.
6. M/S K C ALLY COMPANY, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON
MR.D. KRISHNA CHAITANYA, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONER, R/O FLAT NO.406, BLOCK-2, R.B.R. COMPLEX,
MIYAPUR, HYDERABAD - 500049.
...RESPONDENT(S):
3
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME (AP)
2. J DILEEP KUMAR
3. C V R RUDRA PRASAD
4. GP MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEV AP
The Court made the following:
4
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION Nos.2015 and 2329 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
1. W.P.No.2015 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings vide Roc.No.2562/2023/G2, dated 12.01.2024, as illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the Respondents not to interfere with the running of traffic umbrellas situated in 44 locations erected by the Petitioner within the limits of Respondent-Corporation.
2. W.P.No.2329 of 2024 is filed questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings vide Roc.No.2562/2023/G2, dated 14.09.2023, as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondents to continue the Petitioner's traffic umbrellas till the expiry of the license period i.e. 31.03.2024 and for payment of Rs.40,00,000/- towards loss caused to the Petitioner.
3. As the issue in both the cases is the same, the Writ Petitions were heard together with the consent of counsels.
4. W.P.No.2329 of 2024 is taken as lead case for description of the parties and for narration of facts.
5
5. The facts leading to filing of W.P.No.2329 of 2024 are as follows:-
The Petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the business of advertising contracts through erection of hoardings, pole kiosks, bus shelters, centre medians, traffic umbrellas at traffic signals etc. On the representation of the Petitioner's company, Respondent No.2 permitted the Petitioner for display of advertisement of traffic umbrellas in various road junctions in Tirupati Municipal Corporation limits vide Order in Roc.No.2510/2006/G1, dated 01.10.2010. As such, the Petitioner erected traffic umbrellas in various road junctions in the Corporation limits of Respondent No.2 and the permission was being renewed from time to time on payment of necessary fee by the Petitioner. The Petitioner paid advertisement tax of Rs.10,00,000/- for the year 2023-2024 and that his license is valid till 31.03.2024.
6. On 10.02.2016, Respondent No.2 issued a notification on 10.02.2016 enhancing the rate of advertisement tax abnormally with effect from 01.04.2015 and the Petitioner along with the advertising agencies filed W.P.No.10379 of 2016 assailing the hike. An interim order was passed restraining the Respondents not to insist on payment of enhanced amounts. Subsequently, the Petitioner also filed 6 W.P.No.37354 of 2018 questioning the demand notice issued by Respondent No.2 under Sections 420 and 421 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 to pay advertisement tax and encroachment fee.
7. A similar demand notice issued on 14.02.2019 by Respondent No.2 was questioned by the Petitioner in W.P.No.2909 of 2019. It is also stated that the Petitioner also filed W.P.No.9149 of 2020 questioning the action of Respondent No.2 in seeking to remove the Petitioner's advertisement material. It is stated that the Petitioner also filed W.P.No.17084 of 2020 questioning the illegal action of the Respondents in removing the advertisement material of the Petitioner for non-payment of the demand notice issued by Respondent No.2 on 18.08.2020.
8. It is submitted that the Petitioner had paid advertisement fee for the years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023 without any default. While so, the Petitioner again issued another notice in January, 2023 calling for payment of enhanced advertisement fee. As the representation of the Petitioner was not considered, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.4486 of 2023 questioning the demand notice and the same is pending. It is also stated that the Petitioner had filed W.P.No.16869 of 2023 and 7 W.P.No.21537 of 2023 before this Court questioning the action of Respondent No.2 for removal of traffic umbrellas.
9. It is stated that this Court passed a Common Order on 09.10.2023 directing the Respondent authorities to consider the representation dated 17.07.2023 of the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the Respondent authorities passed an order on 12.01.2024 rejecting the representation of the Petitioner for continuance of traffic umbrellas at the traffic junctions. It is stated that the Petitioner filed W.P.No.2015 of 2024 questioning the same. Subsequently, vide Proceedings dated 14.09.2024, Respondent No.6 was permitted to erect traffic umbrellas at 49 locations. Questioning the same, W.P.No.2329 of 2024 is filed.
10. Respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 filed their Counter Affidavits separately.
11. In the Counter Affidavit filed by Respondent No.2, it was stated that the license of the Petitioner was expired on 31.03.2024. Though elaborate pleadings were raised disputing the claim of the Petitioner with regard to earlier Writ Petitions, this Court is not inclined to refer all those aspects since the correctness of the claim of the Petitioner would be decided in those respective Writ Petitions. It is stated by Respondent No.2 that the Petitioner with a mala fide intention has 8 been using the permission issued by the Respondent-Corporation for the year 2010-2011 and trying to use advertisement space without taking renewal and paying enhanced amount as per the Gazette Notification and has been causing huge loss to the Corporation.
12. It is also stated that the Petitioner has been using advertisement space since 14 years and has been making huge profits, but has been paying amounts to the Corporation at 15 year old rates without enhancement. It is also stated that the Petitioner did not renew agency license fee of the year 2011 and his license renewal fee is of the year 2010 for the year 2023-2024, which stood expired on 31.03.2024. It is also stated that under the guise of pending Writ Petitions, the Petitioner was using the advertisement space illegally paying part amounts to the Respondent-Corporation.
13. Respondent No.5 filed Counter Affidavit denying the claim of the Petitioner pleading that the traffic umbrellas installed by the Petitioner were outdated and not meeting the requirements of the traffic police personnel to discharge their duties and the allegation of removal of traffic umbrellas was denied by Respondent No.5.
14. Respondent No.6 filed their Counter Affidavit contending that the license period of the Petitioner stood expired by 31.03.2024 and in the 9 absence of vested right for continuation, no interference is called for and the Writ Petitions cannot have any merit. It was contended that Respondent No.6 had installed traffic umbrellas at 75% of the allotted places and an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- was incurred for erecting the umbrellas and having invested subsidy amount, the Petitioner is running from pillar is dragged into this litigation and sought for dismissal of the same.
15. In the Reply Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, the allegations made against the Petitioner were denied. It was also denied that the Petitioner is due about Rs.3,46,06,628/- to the Respondent No.2- Corporation and that Respondent No.2 failed to consider the payment of Rs.2,47,00,000/-.
16. Heard the respective counsels, who reiterated their contentions mentioned in the Writ Petition. There are two issues which fall for consideration in these Writ Petitions i.e.
a) Whether there was renewal of licence in favour of the Petitioner from 2011 onwards and if so, whether the same is subsisting?
b) Whether the permission in favour of Respondent No.6 to set-up traffic umbrellas is vitiated?
10
17. Issue No.(a)::: Primarily, as per the claim of the Petitioner, the permission to set up traffic umbrellas in various road junctions in Tirupati Corporation limits, was issued on 01.10.2010 vide Roc.No.2510/2006/G1. As per the Counter Affidavit of the Respondent No.2-Corporation, there is a specific denial of renewal of the license in favour of the Petitioner. It is also further stated that the Petitioner was paying only part amounts to the Respondent No.2-Corporation and was paying advertisement tax as fixed for the years 2015-2016 only. It is also stated that under the guise of pending repeated Writ Petitions, the Petitioner was using spaces by paying part amounts of regular demand at old rates and making the profits and causing loss to the public exchequer.
18. It was also stated that this Court in various Writ Petitions filed by the Petitioner never directed the Respondent Corporation to renew the license after 2011 but only directed not to insist on payment of enhanced advertisement tax. Though, in the reply affidavit, the Petitioner filed receipts showing payment of renewal amount, the same would not suffice, since a specific permission renewing licence is required under Clause (4) of the original license, the original permission i.e. 01.10.2010. The Clause (4) thereof reads as under:- 11
"4. The Agency should pay the security deposit/renewal fee as per the gazette notification before obtaining permission."
19. The payment of renewal fee is a prerequisite for permission and mere payment of renewal fee would not suffice, as a specific permission is contemplated for continuing the license as per the original licence in favour of the Petitioner. Apart from the same, even as per the Petitioner as apparent from the prayer in the Writ Petition, the license period was upto 31.03.2024 only. Therefore, continuance of the un-official respondent from 31.03.2024 cannot be called in question by the Petitioner, as admittedly, there is no renewal permission in his favour. The Issue (a) is accordingly answered.
20. Issue No.(b)::: In the Counter Affidavit of Respondent No.5 i.e. beneficiary Department of the traffic umbrellas, it was stated that the 44 traffic umbrellas located by the Petitioner were outdated and were not meeting the requirements of the traffic personnel in discharging their duties under the umbrellas. In the proceedings dated 28.6.2023, Respondent No.6 proposed to build traffic umbrellas with amenities like chair, writing table, fan, traffic announcement mike set and mobile generating point for the traffic police personnel and it was in that context, the offer of Respondent No.6 was accepted. 12
21. The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the grant in favour of un-official Respondent No.6 cannot be sustained as auction has to be conducted as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in S. Y. Nawab v. Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad1. This aspect was not raised in the writ affidavit by the Petitioner and the only ground urged was that the proceedings in favour of Respondent No.6 on 14.09.2023 cannot be sustained, since the licence of the Petitioner was subsisting for the year 2023-24. As there was no plea, the Counter Affidavits by the Respondents did not deal with this aspect. Therefore, in the absence of necessary pleadings, this contention cannot be urged straightaway in the arguments.
22. Nonetheless, this contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner is quite odd for the reason that since the year 2010, the Petitioner was continuing without there being any auction and displayed advertisements on the traffic umbrellas never insisting on public auction all through for almost 14 years. This issue of conducting public auction was raised by the Petitioner for the first time and only when the license to install traffic umbrellas was given in favour of un- official Respondent No.6. There are absolutely no bona fides on the part of the Petitioner and it is well known that conduct of the parties 1 2001 (4) ALD 146 (FB) 13 seeking relief under Article 226 should be free of blemish and fair. In this context, it would be appropriate to refer to a Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar2 :
"Power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblameworthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blameworthy conduct."
23. Further, the Full Bench decision of this Court, on facts, held that the acceptance of a proposal to erect signboards and permitting it let out for advertisement in favour of the Respondent therein was vitiated, as the authority went out of the way to favour the Respondent therein even though he did not respond to the press notification. It was in that context, the Full Bench of this Court held that all contractual conditions should be specified without giving any scope for arbitrariness. There was no absolute mandate that in future, all the advertisement spaces have to be given only by way of public auction. It is always open to the Respondent authorities to avoid public auction and the only rider is 2 (1995) 4 SCC 683, at page 692 14 that there should be acceptable reasons and non-arbitrariness. In this case, as mentioned supra, the offer of Respondent No.6 was accepted as he offered traffic umbrellas with better amenities and a fair amount to the Respondent Corporation towards licence. The reason for acceptance does not appear to suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.
24. Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the claim of the Petitioner and W.P.No.2329 of 2024 is dismissed.
25. In view of the decision in W.P.No.2329 of 2024, the W.P.No.2015 of 2024 also stands dismissed.
26. No order as to costs.
27. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 09.07.2025 IS 15 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION Nos.2015 and 2329 of 2024 Date: 09.07.2025 IS