THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.4405 of 2022

ORDER :

The present Writ Petition was filed, originally, against respondents 1 to 3, seeking a direction to respondent No.3 not to demand license fee in respect of an extent of 42,508 square feet i.e. 23,380 square feet for want of municipal permission and 19,128 square feet, being the space not provided to the petitioner by respondent No.3, out of total extent of 64,648 square feet, under Tender Notice No.01/2019-20/Pub.5/OOH Packages, dated 03.05.2019, holding that the demand of respondent No.3 for 23,380 square feet which requires municipal permission and 19,128 square feet, being the space not provided to the petitioner by respondent No.3, is illegal and arbitrary.

2. The averments of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, in brief, are as follows.

(a) The petitioner participated in the Tender process pursuant to Tender dated 03.05.2019 issued by respondent No.3 for award of licence for display of Advertisements at earmarked areas at out-of-home locations (i.e. outside the station premises) via. Hoardings, Boards, Wall paintings, Digital Display with LED screens, at different locations specified under each of the Packages A, B, C and D, and petitioner’s tender was accepted for Package-D, meant for outside locations of Vijayawada Station, at a licence fee of Rs.13,85,91,000/- for a period of five years, and the acceptance was confirmed vide letter dated 13.07.2019 by respondent No.3. The area promised to be provided to the petitioner for advertisements, etc. is 64,648 square feet under various categories of erection.

(b) Pursuant to issuance of the letter of acceptance, there was a joint inspection of the earmarked locations of Package-D, wherein it was found that it was not possible to erect hoardings at certain locations, and the petitioner submitted a letter dated 29.7.2019, giving details of such identified locations. Petitioner requested to provide space for the deficit areas and also to provide permission from RTC and Corporation authorities, or in the alternative, to reduce the licence fee pro rata, for the area that is not made available. In compliance with the Tender conditions and as per letter dated 13.7.2019 of respondent No.3, the petitioner paid balance amount of 1st half year and GST bill vide letter dated 21.8.2019, by reiterating the aforesaid request. The petitioner submitted Bank Guarantee on 31.8.2019 towards security deposit being 50% of 5th year licence fee, and respondent No.3 confirmed the advertising rights in favour of the petitioner for five years, through letter dated 13.9.2019.

(c) Vide letter dated 16.09.2019, respondent No.3 intimated that it was not feasible to allow for erection of hoarding at the space mentioned at S.No.29 of Annexure to the letter dated 13.07.2019, due to technical reasons, and proposed for providing alternate location as per Clause 14.1 of the Tender.

(d) It is stated that an area of 23,380 square feet, out of the total area of 64,648 square feet offered to the petitioner, requires municipal permission, and as per the tender conditions, the petitioner applied for permission from the municipal authorities, and vide letter dated 30.01.2021, 4th respondent informed that the request of the petitioner is kept in abeyance as the decision is awaited from the Government on the policy matter. The petitioner sent a copy of the said letter dated 30.1.2021 of 4th respondent, to respondent No.3 through letter dated 4.2.2021, indicating that the only area available for advertising is 22,140 square feet. Respondent No.3, ignoring the factum that the petitioner is prohibited from utilizing 21,780 square feet for want of statutory clearance from 4th respondent and the petitioner is not provided with balance promised area of 12,979 square feet, issued the impugned notice dated 26.8.2021, demanding licence fee after deducting pro rata charges only for 7749 square feet identified by it. The petitioner gave