##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

WRIT PETITION No.2334 of 2026

DATE OF ORDER: 28.01.2026

Between:

M/s. SVC Space Advertising,

Represented by its partner

Aleti Varun, S/o. Aleti Srinivasa Rao

...Petitioner

AND

The State of Telangana,

Rep. by its Principal Secretary,

Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MA

& UD) Department,

Secretariat, Hyderabad & 2 Others

...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of

respondent Nos.2 and 3, who were trying to remove the

petitioner’s hoardings, unipoles and cantilevers at Shamshabad,

Nizampet & Dundigal Municipality Limits (new merged with

GHMC Limits) including AIN 2119900042; beside Masjid,

Thondupally (Shamshabad), AIN2119900041 : Dehlhiwala Sweet

2

House, Shamshabad, Cantilever permissions : multiple locations

including Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, Opp: Sub-Station near Praneeth

Antilia, and Opp. HMWS Water tankers, without issuing any

notice. A consequential prayer is sought to direct the

respondents from interfering with the petitioner’s advertisement

structures of hoardings, unipoles and cantilevers at

Shamshabad, Nizampet & Dundigal Municipality Limits (new

merged with GHMC Limits), until a uniform advertisement policy

is framed and implemented.

2. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned

counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue raised in

this writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this

Court in W.P.No.1887 of 2026, dated 22.01.2026, and prayed to

pass similar orders.

3. Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

GHMC appearing for respondent No.2, Mr. R.Sameer Ahmed,

learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA appearing for respondent

No.6 and learned counsel representing Mr. Laxmaiah Kanchani,

learned Standing Counsel for Shamshabad Municipalities did

not dispute the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioner.

3

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. Recording the submissions of learned counsel appearing

for petitioner and respondents, without going into merits of the

case, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation along

with evidence showing payment of the prescribed advertisement

fees in terms of the circular vide

Lr.No.568/Advt/HYDRAA/2025, dated 14.03.2025 issued by

respondent No.3 within a period of ten (10) days from today. On

receipt of such representation, the respondent No.6 shall dispose

of the same by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,

and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law,

within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Pending such

exercise, the respondent authorities are directed not to take any

coercive steps against the petitioner.

6. As it is stated by the learned Standing Counsel for GHMC

and learned Standing Counsel for HYDRAA that flexies are not

part of the contract awarded to the petitioner, the officials of

GHMC and HYDRAA are at liberty to take action against the

petitioner for removal of flexies in the subject places, by following

due process of law.

4

7. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed

of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any

pending in this petition, shall stand closed.

_________________________________

JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

Date: 28.01.2026

Nsk