IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.7603 of 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 12.03.2026 Between:

M/s. Smart Media Solutions, Rep. by its Director Shaik Aslam, S/o. Late Shaik Shareef ...Petitioner AND The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department Secretariat, Hyderabad & 4 Others ...Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed questioning the action of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in illegally interfering into the advertisement works of the petitioner from the places allotted in Gurramguda X Road to Bonguloor ORR including Nagarjuna Sagar Road in Thurkayamjal Municipality limits starting to ending 7.8 Kms (hereinafter referred as “subject stretch”), without following any due process of law knowing well that the petitioner had entered into MoU (BOT) dated 07.06.2024 and also paid necessary amounts and maintained the flyover road, patch works, plantation, footpath, electricity lights, radium stickers, no entry boards, footpath tiles, tree trimming, etc. A consequential prayer is sought to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 not to interfere into the advertisement works of the petitioner from the subject stretch, by permitting the petitioner to do the advertisement works as per MoU (BOT) dated 07.06.2024.

2. Brief facts of the case as stated are that the petitioner firm is an outdoor advertising company dealing with central lightning works, advertisements which includes display boards, LED displays, hoardings, lollipops, cantilevers, etc. It is further submitted that petitioner entered into MoU dated 07.06.2024 with respondent No.5 for advertisement of 5 years in the subject place and had paid necessary amounts and maintained the flyover road, patch works, plantation, footpath, electricity lights, radium stickers, no entry boards, footpath tiles, tree trimming, etc. It is further submitted that after entering into MoU with respondent No.5, the petitioner followed the conditions and erected advertisement boards and deposited an amount of Rs.5.00 lakhs as the deposit amount.

3. The main grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner spent huge amount to install the advertisement sign board, as per the MoU entered, the GHMC authorities without issuing any notice and information, removed the advertisement sign boards by way of engaging their employees. Aggrieved by the action of GHMC officials, the present writ petition is filed.

4. 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 orders passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.3636 and 3497 of 2026, dated 09.02.2026, and prays to pass similar orders.

5. Learned counsel representing Mr. G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4 did not dispute to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

7. In view of the submissions made by either counsel representing the parties, as long as the petitioner complies with the terms and conditions contained in the MoU dated 07.06.2024 and confines the installations strictly to those permitted under the approved proposals, the respondent Nos.2 to 4 shall not interfere with the petitioner’s lawful advertisement structures covered by the said agreement. It is further clarified that the concerned GHMC authorities are at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner for assessment and collection of advertisement tax or any statutory levy in accordance with law, and the petitioner shall respond to the same. However, if any unauthorized structures, including display boards, hoardings, etc., not covered by the permissions and MoU dated 07.06.2024, are found on the subject stretch, it is open to the respondents to take action strictly in accordance