IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WP.Nos. 30527, 30575, 30850, 30877, 30911, 30916, 30971, 30973, 31107, 31124, 31140, 31162, 31173, 31184, 31185, 31201, 31261, 32459, 32645, 34617 and

35337 of 2016 Dt.06.05.2026 WP.No.30575 of 2016 Between:

Outspace Advertising, Hyderabad and Ors.

…. Petitioners and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER:

1. Though all (21) writ petitions are filed by different petitioners challenging different orders/communications, as the very same issue is raised in all the writ petitions, they are all heard analogously treating Writ Petition No.30575 of 2016 as the lead case and the result of the same will be governing the issues raised by the petitioners in other writ petitions.

2. The lead writ petition i.e., Writ Petition No.30575 of 2016 is filed to declare the actions of the respondents No.1 & 2 in prohibiting the petitioners from exhibiting advertisements on the display boards of Document P3 unipoles and hoardings by issuing various e-mails including e-mail, dt.21.05.2016, and Lr.No.128/Advt/GHMC/2016, dt.06.08.2016, communicated by email dt.08.08.2016, thereby interfering with the petitioners’ right to conduct their legitimate and duly authorized business activity, as being arbitrary, illegal, and unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and also violative of the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955, and consequently to set aside the same, and to direct Respondent No.1 not to interfere with the petitioners’ lawful business activities of exhibiting flexis, display boards, hoardings and unipoles, in terms of their agreements/contracts, and to pass such other order or orders as may be deemed fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are carrying on the business of advertisement contracts, including the erection of hoardings and unipoles, and display of advertisements on flexis affixed on display boards of such hoardings and unipoles, and the Respondent No.1 is a regulatory authority which has framed guidelines for advertising on unipoles under the provisions of the GHMC Act, 1955. The respondents Nos.1 & 2, being statutory authorities, are empowered to regulate and control matters relating to erection, exhibition, fixing, etc., of advertisements and related structures and to issue licenses by charging license fee under Sections 421 and 622 of the GHMC Act, 1955.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner filed applications in Form II to respondent No.1 for erection of hoardings and unipoles and that 1^st respondent has granted licenses for the same by collecting appropriate charges, and each of the unipoles and display boards of hoardings is assigned a specific AIN (Advertisement Identification Number) and accordingly, the petitioners have been exhibiting advertisements on such unipoles from time to time under valid permissions granted by the 1^st respondent No.1.

5. It is further contended that the said licenses were granted based on structural stability certificates, including NOCs and payment of proportionate advertisement fees under Section 622 of the GHMC Act, 1955. It is also stated that advertisement fee is required to be paid in advance before the commencement of the next financial year, and all permissions in respect of the hoardings and unipoles of the petitioners are valid and subsisting as on the date of filing of the writ petitions.

6. It is further stated that such permissions are renewed annually by the 1^st respondent upon payment of requisite fees, however, on 20.05.2016, one unipole belonging to another outdoor advertising agency fell due to heavy winds and rains, damaging certain vehicles. The incident occurred due to gale and storm conditions of an unprecedented and abnormal nature, constituting an act of force majeure.

7. Subsequently, on 21.05.2016, an e-mail was issued by th