Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Signpost India Limited - Appellant
Versus
The Bengaluru Bruhat Mahanagara Palike - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26349 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anant Mandagi, Shreedevi K.B.
For the Respondents: Vikram Huilgol, B.L. Sanjeev, Spoorthy V.
Public-Private Partnership agreements take precedence over general statutory provisions, affirming that contractual rights established through a tender process cannot be unilaterally rescinded by regulatory authorities.
Headnote:(A) BBMP Act, 2020 - Section 158; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Outdoor Signage and Public Messaging Bye-Laws, 2018 - Clause 11.3 - Writ petition challenging notices directing removal of advertising structures - Court held that ex post facto reinterpretation of contractual obligations under a PPP framework is impermissible and invalid. (Paras 12-24)
(B) Public-Private Partnership - Nature of contractual obligations - Advertisements integral to project framework, cannot be disrupted without due process - Rule of law dictates fairness in administrative actions. (Paras 15-19)
(C) Judicial precedents on commercial rights under contractual obligations - Special arrangements in PPPs prevail over general statutory prohibitions. (Paras 13-17)
Facts of the case:
Registered company disputes BBMP’s orders to dismantle variable messaging advertising panels, claiming interference with rights established under prior agreements and a judicial compromise involving 20-year term for advertisements.
Findings of Court:
Court deemed BBMP's actions arbitrary, holding that the petitioner’s rights conveyed under a legally binding PPP agreement were violated by recent notices.
Issues: Whether BBMP’s actions under Section 158 of the Act are sustainable against a binding PPP agreement, and whether general regulations can override specific contractual rights established through a legal tender process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court maintained that the contractual relationship arising from a public tender must prevail over administrative inconsistencies, emphasizing that the rights to advertisements stem from a lawful and binding PPP agreement not subject to unilateral alteration.
Result: Writ petition allowed; BBMP’s notices quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition challenges bbmp notices. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court evaluates contractual obligations. (Para 7 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. joint memorandum outlines reliefs sought. (Para 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. contractual obligations outweigh regulations. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 5. writ petition allowed, notices quashed. (Para 24) |
ORDER :
1. The captioned writ petition is filed challenging the impugned notices dated 13.09.2024 bearing No. AC(Advt)/PR/489/2024-25 issued by the Office of the Special Commissioner, which are produced at Annexures-Y and Z. By way of this petition, the petitioner-a registered company engaged in the advertising business - seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere with the petitioner’s legitimate right to erect and maintain variable messaging display advertising panels, in terms of the Joint Memorandum of Compromise recorded in W.P. No. 17728/2021. The petitioner also seeks a consequential writ or direction mandating the respondents to issue completion certificates in respect of the installations referred to in its letter dated 28.08.2024 bearing No. SIPL/071/2023-24 (Annexure-U).
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:
On 03.03.2018, respondent No.1-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)-issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) vide Tender Notification No. EE/TEC/TEND/15/2017-18, inviting bids for the construction and maintenance of new police sentry boxes (popularly known as police chowkis) under a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) model, permitting commercial advertisements in lieu of construction, for a concession period of 20 years. The tender was floated on the E-procurement portal. The petitioner company was declared as the successful bidder for Packages B and C comprising 195 and 194 locations respectively.
3. Pursuant to the award of the tender, the petitioner and BBMP entered into two distinct agreements on 01.03.2019 for the construction of new police booths and traffic umbrellas under a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model, in exchange for commercial advertisement rights for a term of 20 years. Based on the said agreements, BBMP issued work orders requiring the petitioner to complete the construction within 12 months. However, while the project was ongoing, BBMP directed the petitioner to dismantle certain variable messaging display panels, alleging that their installation violated the terms of the agreement.
4. Subsequently, BBMP called upon the petitioner to execute modified and supplementary agreements for Packages B and C. Despite these changes, the petitioner claims to have satisfactorily completed and commissioned the construction of police sentry booths and advertisement poles at ten locations. Aggrieved by BBMP's communication/order dated 31.03.2021, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P. No. 17728/2021. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed I.A. No. 1/2022 seeking a direction to BBMP to issue completion certificates in respect of six completed locations. This Court, by a reasoned order, allowed the said application and directed BBMP to issue the certificates for the six police sentry booths and the corresponding variable messaging display panels.
5. Alleging non-compliance with the directions issued in W.P. No. 17728/2021, the petitioner initiated contempt proceedings in CCC No. 887/2022. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the parties arrived at an amicable settlement and filed a Joint Memorandum of Compromise before this Court in W.P. No. 17728/2021. In terms of the compromise, the petitioner was permitted to erect and maintain four independent digital advertising variable display panels, each measuring 3.75 square meters, located at a minimum distance of 100 feet from traffic signals, in areas where the police booths were installed. The exact locations were to be determined by mutual consent.
6. The present writ petition is filed cont
