PRAKASH ARTS Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 18052 of 2012 is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to remove the unipoles at police lands 1) Khairatabad Intelligence office site, 2) Punjagutta Police Station, 3) Police Control Room and 4) Rasoolpura Cross Roads at Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to remove the unipoles. Writ Petition No. 21361 of 2012 is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in addressing letter R.C. No. 196/VI/09, dated 13-09-2011 to the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently set aside the letter No. 604//AD3/Advt/GHMC/2011/106, dated 28-05-2012 of the 4th respondent.

(2.) It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No. 18052 of 2012 that 1st respondent invited advertising agencies to submit their bids for erection of advertisement hoardings/unipoles at various locations on police department lands at Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted its offer and similarly other advertisement agencies also submitted their offers. The 1st respondent was pleased to allot four locations namely; 1) Khairatabad Intelligence office site, 2) Punjagutta Police Station, 3) Police Control Room and 4) Rasoolpura Cross Roads at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as 'locations'). The petitioner initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently the 1st respondent entered into Memo of Understanding (for short 'MOU') with the petitioner for a further period of 3 years. The petitioner was permitted to display advertisements on enhanced rentals by the 1st respondent. The petitioner paid the rental amounts and he is entitled to display advertisements up to 2012. The petitioner is displaying its customers advertisements i.e., S.B.I., Airtel and Fitzee. While so, the subordinates of the 1st respondent suddenly started removing unipoles without issuing any notice. On coming to know about the high-handed action of the employees, the petitioner objected for removal. The petitioner was not given any notice for removal of unipoles. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner paid the amounts to the 1st respondent and if there are any arrears, the petitioner is ready to pay the same. Hence, the writ petition.

(3.) 1St respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that Government issued G.O.Rt. No. 320, Home (WNT) Department, dated 18-03-2003 according permission to the Director General of Police for erection of unipoles by the two advertisement agencies at four places in the police premises. Three unipoles were erected w.e.f. August 2004. Due to unwillingness of the Intelligence Department, the unipole at fourth location was not erected. The Government vide G.O.Rt. No. 1719, Home (WNT) Department, dated 20-11-2007 issued orders withdrawing the earlier order in G.O.Rt. No. 320, dated 18-03-2003 as the three years period for the erection of unipoles was elapsed and directed the 1st respondent to select a new agency through open bid system for erection of unipoles for three years with an annual increase @ 15% and to deposit the amount earned in the Government account. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 1st respondent, the Government by its proceedings, dated 22-01-2008 extended permission for five months for continuation of unipoles at Begumpet Police Lines and Begumpet Police Station i.e., from 01-10-2007 to 28-02-2008 and three months at Rasoolpura cross roads i.e., from 01-12-2007 to 28-02-2008 and thereafter, no extension was given to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. It is also stated that the unipoles erected at Begumpet Police Lines and Begumpet Police Station were removed in the moth of March, 2008, but the unipole erected at Rasoolpura cross roads has not been removed. The petitioner was directed to remove the unipole. As per the MOU, dated 31-07-2006, two years renewal was given from 14-12-2006. Thereafter, no extension was given to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner herein initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of three years and subsequently the 1st respondent entered into MOU with the petitioner for a further period of three years is not correct. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to carry on the business in the said premises. The respondents also removed hoardings/unipoles by 18-06-2012 and is taking steps to issue tender notification to lease out the said four premises. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.