ORDER:

The present writ petition is filed to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to act in accordance with law and their statutory and contractual duties pursuant to the conclusion of the tender notification process and the conclusion of contract pursuant to the acceptance of bid by the 1st respondent on 01.09.2018; to declare the action of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in seeking to demolish the 80 advertisement LED boards erected from Pillar No. 120 to Pillar No. 200 of the PVNR Expressway, Hyderabad; to restrain the respondents from interfering with the said business of the petitioners’ right to conduct their legitimate and duly authorized business activity in accordance with the concluded contract; to issue a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to forbear from interfering with the activity of the petitioners to continue with their lawful business exhibiting the advertisement boards from Pillar No. 120 to Pillar No. 200.

2. Heard Sri Anjana Taggarse Motupalli and Associates, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Department appearing for the 3rd respondent. Perused the record.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE

(i) A tender notification No.76/BPP/HMDA/2018 dated 27.07.2018 was issued by the 1st respondent under Tender Id.No.76665 to grant license to design, install, operate and maintain 160 LED advertisement boards on 80 pillars from Pillar No. 120 to Pillar No. 200 at PVNR Expressway, Hyderabad.

(ii) The petitioners paid the EMD bid security and submitted all the bid documents in accordance with the Request for Proposal (hereinafter RFP) document issued pursuant to the tender notice. The last date to submit the bids was 24.08.2021 and the bids were to be finalized on 01.09.2018.

(iii) The 1st petitioner’s bid was accepted as the highest bid and it was awarded the tender. Based on the remarks reflected on the Telangana e-Procurement Website, the 1st Petitioner claimed that the tender was awarded to it on 01.09.2018 5:23 PM. This, according to the petitioner, was communication of acceptance and resulted in a concluded contract between itself and the 1st respondent. However, subsequent to the online communication of awarding the bid to the 1st petitioner, no steps were taken by the respondent authorities to act in accordance with the RFP. No letter of acceptance was issued nor any license agreement was executed between the parties.

(iv) The petitioners claim that they received oral assent from the 1st respondent to install the advertisement boards as the contract was already concluded. The petitioners installed eighty advertisement boards on 40 pillars.

(v) The 1st Respondent denied any conclusion of contract and any oral assent to install the advertisement boards and removed the said advertisement boards.

(vi) The Petitioners have challenged the removal of the said advertisement boards contending that lawful agreement is subsisting as illegal and arbitrary and sought a direction against the respondent authorities not to interfere with their lawful conduct of business.

(vii) It is relevant to note that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed W.A.No.953 of 2019 against an order passed in I.A.No.1 of 2019 in the present Writ Petition. In the said W.A.No.953 of 2019, the Division Bench noted that issuance of Letter of Acceptance has to culminate in the signing of agreement. It was observed that whether acceptance of bid would be tantamount to entering into a contract needs to be decided by the Single Judge. Therefore, direction was given to decide the present writ petition as expeditiously as possible.

(viii) It is also relevant to note that the order passed in I.A.No.5 of 2019 filed to amend the writ petition, was also challenged by the petitioner herein vide W.A.No.271 of 2021. The said appeal was disposed of by th