RAJU, J. - (1.) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2.) THE appellant, who was arrayed as second respondent in Writ Petition No.22227 of 1994 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, filed by the first respondent in this Court, though succeeded before the learned single judge, lost before the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No.712 of 1995, resulting in this appeal. THE writ petition before the High Court was filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the municipal corporation of Hyderabad relating to the permission granted by the corporation to the appellant to erect or display any advertisement/street signs/direction boards/arches on the public roads/colonies etc., within the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and the permission granted for display thereon to the second respondent or to any other person and declare the same to be ultra-vires the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal corporation Act and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. THE learned single judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner was not able to establish any illegality as alleged in the transaction. THE learned judge also adverted to the salient features of the transaction and the circumstances under which the work came to be entrusted to the appellant as well as the further fact that only two circles were taken up for putting up the boards and the other circles are always available for the petitioner or anyone else interested to approach the corporation and undertake such work. It was also observed therein that the assignment entrusted to the appellant was not shown to be of any grant of largesse, as it did not involve exploitation of any property. Aggrieved, the writ petitioner moved the Division Bench and the Division Bench on 26.9.95 seems to have passed an order recording the willingness of parties as hereunder: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we wanted to know from the learned counsel for the corporation if on similar terms and conditions the corporation is prepared to award the contract to the writ appellant as was done earlier. Learned counsel submitted that 80% of the work is still remained to be completed and the corporation will have no objection to grant to the writ appellant as well. Learned counsel for the writ appellant also show the willingness of the writ appellant to take the contract on similar terms and conditions on which the second respondent in this writ appeal was granted contract. For settling the terms and the extent of the work to be entrusted to the writ appellant, in pursuance of the mutual agreement expressed before us by the learned counsel for the parties, both of them wanted some time. Accordingly time till 12.10.95 is granted. Put upon 13.10.95." Notwithstanding, the writ petitioner appears to have even thereafter without availing of the said order, pursued the litigation, as if on a public interest litigation and the Division Bench of the High Court by its order under challenge in this appeal allowed the appeal, as prayed for and directed termination of the contract and proceed to make an exercise afresh for the purpose. Certain relevant factual details have to be noticed for a proper appreciation of the respective contentions of the parties and the legal principles that should be really applied in adjudging the same. The corporation, though a metropolitan city, seems to have had no road names display anywhere and there appears to have been also no proper house numbering and the one in vogue was of a confusing pattern. The appellant appears to have volunteered to take up the rationalisation of house numbering in the twin cities by assigning house numbers in continuous series in each locality as house number, street number, locality, and also erect street sign boards indicating the name of the locality, street number, details of house numbers etc. The corporation seems to have also had an idea of erecting for the use and benefit of public road direction boards on various thoroughfares of twin cities. Though all these were said to have been on the agenda of the corporation for long, financial constraints seem to have stood in the way of its realization, due to requirement of substantial sums of money to implement the same. Only at this stage, the appellant was said to have approached in September, 1973 the corporation with a proposal formulated by them, on an in depth study, in the form of a scheme and project and expressed their willingness to undertake a fresh survey if the corporation desired to take up the project. The appellant was asked to show various designs formulated by them and display one of them for sample and it appears to have been done at a place near Bakers Inn on the existing electrical pole showing the direction towards Raj Bhawan Road. The then Commissioner and other officials who inspected the work in November, 1993 were said to have been not impressed and wanted the appellant to change the same by doing it without using the electrical pole. After going through the various revised designs submitted by them, one among them appears to have been chosen and the appellants were asked to execute a sample board during the second week of November, 1993 which was considered to be satisfactory to the concerned authorities of the corporation. A detailed project report was said to have been also submitted by the appellant on 25.11.93 after conducting a survey and the sample street signboards and direction boards were executed, to ascertain the utility of them. As a test venture, the appellant was said to have been asked to find out sponsors for meeting the cost of street sign boards and take up the work in circle no.3 and Secunderabad Division by a letter dated 30.3.94. Subsequently, also for further ascertaining the satisfactory nature of the system, the corporation was said to have asked for the erection of 3 sample boards at West Marredpally for inspection and on such inspection by the commissioner, additional commissioner (project), officer-in- special duty, and thereafter further suggestions were said to have been also given as to increasing the height of the board and after effecting alterations, modifications and corrections, the corporation seems to have finally asked the appellant to erect street signboards at Marredpally, Secunderabad Division in Gagan Mahal area in circle no.3 duly specifying the dimensions, height, shape of board and space to be left for sponsor, in the communication dated 23.6.94 of the commissioner of the corporation. Thereupon it appears the appellant submitted a proposal on 7.9.94 in respect of road direction boards for erection on main through fares of twin cities along with a design and model which was said to have been agreed to on principle by the corporation and asked the appellant to erect a sample of it at Patni Junction, Secunderabad in the communication dated 16.8.94 of the Director of House Numbering Cell. The appellant thereupon appears to have commenced the work as per the discussions held with the various authorities during the course of the progress of work, who, from time to time, have been inspecting and checking up the execution whereof.
(3.) SINCE the project in question to be implemented by the corporation, was thought to be first of its kind and after an analysis and consideration of all the factors of the project for about an year as noticed above, a decision seems to have been taken to undertake the work as a pilot project, on experimental basis. Accordingly, permission appears to have been granted to the appellant for erection of street signboards in circle no.3 and Secunderabad division by a communication dated 12.9.94/14.9.94 of the commissioner of the corporation with following terms and conditions duly specifying at the same time that the work should be completed by 31.12.94 . " 1. Location of the street sign boards shall be strictly as per the directions of the Director (HNC), MCH. 2. On erection of street signs in each locality, a nominal charge of Rs.5/ (rupees five only) shall be paid to MCH as cost of erection borne by your organization. 3. You are exempted from the advertisement fee and ground rent, as you are displaying street sign board along with your board at your own expenses. However, the MCH will reserve the right to impose the advertisement fee and ground rent if at any point of time, if it is observed and substantiated by any impartial survey that the maintenance is poor and/ or the advertising space is more than stipulated in the agreement, and/or any other terms and conditions are violated. 4. The advertisement space should not be used for any political or religious matters i.e. message or slogans of whatsoever nature. 5. Periodical maintenance should be done, and boards are kept neat and clean by the sponsor. 6. The sizes of street sign boards should be as follows: JUDGEMENT_170_JTSUPP2_2003Html1.htm 7. You will meet the entire cost including civil works, fabrication, erection, painting, lettering, maintenance and MCH will not incur any money for this purpose. 8. You can let out space provided for advertising purpose to any of your clients at your own terms and conditions for 15 years from the date of this letter, after which the same may be extended on mutually agreed terms and conditions. 9. You must complete the erection of street sign boards with complete information within (15) days from the date of receiving all relevant details/data locality-wise from the Director, House Numbering Cell, MCH. 10. M/s 5 M and T Consultants shall execute an agreement on twenty rupees non-judicial stamp paper for due performance of the contractual obligations under this order. 11. M/s M and T Consultants shall alter and align the road direction/ street boards depending on the road widening as and when required." Further, a similar order was said to have been issued for erection of direction boards also at 27 locations, in a communication dated 12.9.94/14.9.94 subject to the following conditions, duly specifying that the work shall be completed before 2.10.94: " 1. Location of the direction boards shall be strictly as per the direction of the Director (HNC), MCH. 2. On erection of each direction board, a fee of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only) shall be paid by M/s 5 M and T Consultants to the MCH as the entire cost of erection is borne by your organization. 3. You are exempted from the advertisement fee and ground rent, as you are displaying direction boards along with board with your board at own expenses. However, the MCH will reserve the right to impose the advertisement fee and ground rent if at any point of time, it is observed and substantiated by any impartial survey that the maintenance is poor and/or the advertising space is more than stipulated in the agreement and/or any other terms and conditions are violated. 4. The advertisement space should not be used for any political or religious matters i.e. message or slogans of whatsoever nature. 5. Periodical maintenance should be done, and boards are kept neat and clean by the sponsor. 6. In space provided for indicating direction to the localities should be strictly followed as given below: JUDGEMENT_170_JTSUPP2_2003Html2.htm 7. You will meet the entire cost including civil works, fabrication, erection, painting, lettering, maintenance and MCH will not incur any money for this purpose. 8. You can let out space provided for advertising purpose to any of your client at your own terms and conditions for (15) years from the date of this letter, after which the same may be extended on mutually agreed terms and conditions." It appears that though the appellant sought for 20 years period from the date of the completion for work for realisation of their investment and other expenditure incurred by them on this project and the maintenance to be undertaken the currency of the period, the corporation decided to accord it for a period of 15 years only, to the appellant. ;