Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 714
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
AD Space Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By Its Director, M. Purushothama Naidu, S/o. Rangaiah Naidu - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary For Municipal Administration And Urban Development and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition Nos.2015 and 2329 of 2024
Decided On : 09-07-2025
For the Petitioner: A Chandraih Naidu.
For the Respondents: GP for Home, GP For Muncipal Admn Urban Dev.
Discretionary relief under Article 226 requires unblemished conduct; a license must be officially renewed, not just payment made, to retain rights.
Headnote:(A) Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 - Renewal of license and advertisement tax - The Petitioner challenged the Respondent's rejection of a representation for the continuance of traffic umbrellas, alleging illegal action. The Respondent denied renewal of the license, stating it expired on 31.03.2024, and that the Petitioner had not complied with payment requirements, while also allowing a competitor to install new umbrellas. (Paras 1, 12, 20, 22)
(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that discretionary relief under Article 226 must be exercised reasonably and only for individuals with unblemished conduct, rejecting claims from those acting in bad faith. (Para 22)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, engaged in advertising, sought to contest the rejection of a renewal request for traffic umbrellas installed on municipal roads. Following issuance of a notification raising advertisement tax, the Petitioner had multiple litigations addressing demands from the Respondent. The Respondent argued that the license expired and allowed another party to install traffic umbrellas.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the Petitioner’s claim, noting that lack of renewal permission and evidence of outdated installations justified the Respondent's actions.
Issues: 1) Whether the Petitioner had a renewed license; 2) Whether the permission granted to another for new umbrellas was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a specific renewal of the license was required and that the Respondent’s acceptance of another proposal was justified and not arbitrary, dismissing the Petitioner’s claims as lacking merit.
Result: Writ Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to actions of respondents regarding traffic umbrellas. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's history with advertisement tax and permissions. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 3. responses from respondents contesting petitioner’s claims. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. discourse on renewal of license and its implications. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 5. analysis of respondent no.6's proposal and auction considerations. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 6. writ petition dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 24) |
| 7. final decision and closure of pending applications. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
ORDER :
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J.
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. 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 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 noti
