RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J.

These three Writ Appeals are filed by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in W.P. No.8585 of 2010. The said Writ Petition was filed by three advertising companies/firms questioning the action of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’) in awarding contracts by way of nomination, terming them as “pilot projects”, to respondent Nos.3 to 6 in the Writ Petition vide proceedings dated 02.09.2009, 25.01.2009 and 09.06.2009. These proceedings were challenged on the ground that the process of public auction or tender was not followed, and award of contracts by nomination was arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 26.04.2011, and the contracts awarded in favour of respondents 4 to 6 were set aside. The learned Single Judge noted that the contract, awarded in favour of the third respondent in the Writ Petition, was terminated by proceedings dated 02.04.2011 on account of the lapses pointed out therein and, in so far as the third respondent was concerned, the grievance of the petitioners stood redressed. The Writ Petition was allowed setting aside the orders issued by the Corporation in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6; the Corporation was directed to conduct auction, in relation to the very works allotted in their favour, within a period of three months from the date of the order; in case respondent Nos.4 to 6 emerged as the highest bidders for those very works, the terms of the contract were to stand revised incorporating the outcome of the auction; if any other agency emerged as the highest bidder for the works, covered by the contracts awarded in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6, the latter were placed under an obligation to remove their installations; the Corporation was to get the expenditure incurred for the individual works, assigned to respondent Nos.4 to 6, and the income derived therefrom in the form of advertisement charges evaluated by a chartered accountant; if the income had either exceeded or was equivalent to the investment, no further steps were needed be taken; if, on the other hand, the investment was found to be more than the income, the Corporation was required to take necessary steps to pay the amount within a period of six months from the date of determination, subject to the terms of the contract between them; the Corporation was required to take steps to invite bids or tenders for installation of the equipment as was awarded to respondent Nos.4 to 6 in other junctions, and other places in the city, as early as possible; and, in no case, was it to award such works on nomination basis. Aggrieved thereby, these three appeals are preferred.

2. The respondent corporation has not only chosen not to prefer an appeal against the order passed in W.P. No.8585 of 2010, but has instead initiated action to comply with the order. Dr. Y. Padmavathi, learned Standing Counsel for the GHMC, would submit that, in compliance with the order of the learned Single Judge, the Corporation had, in terms of clause 16.3 of the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 04.12.2009, terminated the works allotted to the appellants on nomination basis; the appellants were directed to submit details of the expenditure incurred for installation of signages, and for erection of barricades on the central media under the Foot Over bridges, including the income derived from the display of advertisements, so as to entrust the same to a Chartered Accountant to assess the matter; the appellants were directed to hand over the barricade works, and remove the traffic signages, immediately; the Corporation has decided not to prefer an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge; and, in compliance with the said order, to invite bids afresh through the tender process route.

3. It is convenient to classify the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants under different subheads.

I. CAN AWARD OF CONTRACTS BY THE