( 1 ) THE questions of law involved in these two writ petitions are interlinked. Hence, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

( 2 ) WRIT Petition No. 21781 of 1998 was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamusdeclaring the action of the respondents in not so far approving the agreement proforma submitted by the petitioner to commence the contract of three years and in not furnishing the letter of authorisation to enable the petitioner to fix advertisements as illegal and for consequential reliefs.

( 3 ) WRIT Petition No. 31868 of, 1998 was filed seeking a Writ of Mandamuschallenging the proceedings issued by the respondent-Municipal Corporation dated 21-7-1998 demanding a sum of Rs. 1,86,93,500/- as illegal and without jurisdiction and for a consequential direction directing the respondents to extend the lease period for advertising on 4,500 electric poles of Municipal corporation of Hyderabad (M. C. H.) beyond 30-6-1998 by adjusting the payments already made by the petitioners.

( 4 ) FOR proper appreciation of the case, the averments made in W. P. No. 31868of 1998 can be referred to.

( 5 ) THE first petitioner is an advertising agency and the second petitioneris the Director of the first petitioner agency. It was incorporated in the year 1982 under the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that it is a premier advertising agency in the Andhra Pradesh. It has been specialising in the field of advertising on the city buses and other route buses of A. P. S. R. T. C. display of advertisements on bus shelters, bus stations etc. With a view to promote advertisement by Kiosks on lamp posts in the twin cities of Hyderabad and secunderabad, they also approached the Government and offered to undertake the work by paying a huge amount. However, the second respondent published a notice inviting tenders (NIT) for leasing out 4,500 new electrical poles owned by them for the purpose of advertising for a period of 3 years. In pursuance of the notification the petitioners submitted a quotation for a sum of Rs. 56,93,000/- for one year for lease of 4,500 electric poles. Tenders were opened on 21-4-1995. The petitioner-agency was the highest tenderer. A letter was issued on 5-5-1995 by the respondents informing that their tender was accepted and they were directed to arrange payment of security deposit and also 1/3rd lease amount and enter into an agreement with the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that on 10-5-1995 a sum of Rs. 18,98,000/- was paid towards lease amount and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards security deposit. Further, bank guarantee for a sum of Rs. 18,98,000/- was also furnished on 26-6-1995. Thereupon, they forwarded a draft agreement for finalising the same by the respondents. However, without entering into an agreement another demand was made for a sum of Rs. 3,16,250/- stating that the lease had commenced from 1-7-1995. It is also the case of the petitioners that draft lease was submitted to the Municipal Corporation for approval and without taking any action to finalise the lease, a demand was made for rs. 3,16,250/ -. Subsequently reminders were made for executing the lease deed, but, however, no action was taken. It is the case of the petitioners that in the month of November they requested the respondents to give them authorisation letter so as to give advertisements and undertake the work. There was no response from the respondent-Municipal Corporation. But, however, so as to keep good relations with the Municipality a sum of Rs. 3,16,250/- was paid by a cheque dated 30-11-1995. Pending execution of the agreement, the petitioners put some advertisements from advertisers like Cocacola, thumsup etc. , and some advertisements were displayed in about 2, 052 poles for some period. No written lease was executed between the petitioners and the respondents and wherever advertisements on Kiosks displayed by the petitioners they were removed by the respondents without valid authority on the