Lex5 M & T CONSULTANTS, SECUNDERABAD versus S.Y. NAWAB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
---+ ----( , • 5 M & T CONSULT ANTS, SECUNDERABAD V. S.Y. NAWAB AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Municipal Corporations : A B Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955-Sections 126, 129~A, 148, 420, 42 I-Municipal Contracts involving great public interest-Self C Financing Project-Permission granted to appellant to erect signboards and direction boards-For other areas. Corporation invited advertisers . without calling/or any invitation from general public-Writ petitioner did not apply, however, approached Corporation for permission to erect signboards without giving details of any project/plan-Corporation did not D respond-High Court allowed the Writ challenging the permission granted to appellant as arbitr01)'-Correctness of-Held: Writ petitioner only attempted to ventilate personal vendetta and exhibit revengeful attitude rather than sincerely endeavouring to really seek relief-There was no unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of power by C01poration to warrant interference under Article 226 of Constitution-Constitution of India, E 1950-Articles 14, 226. Tenders or public auction-Non floating of-Effect-Held: Non- jloating of tenders or absence of public auction or invitation alone is no sufficient reason to castigate the move or an action of a public authority F as either arbitrary or unreasonable or amounted to mala fide or improper exercise or improper abuse of power by the authority concerned Public authority-Exercise of power-Use and abuse of-Distinction between-Discussed , The appellant had volunteered to take up the rationalization of G house numbering in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad and had submitted detailed project report and even executed a sample board, which was considered satisfactory by the Corporation. After effecting certain modifications, Corporation finally granted permission H 187 . 188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R . , A to appellant to erect street signboatds and direction boards. For other areas, Corporation issued a Circular inviting advertisers without calling for any invitation from the general public and thereafter convened the meeting, w~ich was attended by 30 private advertisers. ''' ia Writ Petitioner who did not attend the meeting made representation complaining about grant of permission to the appellant claiming at the same time for sanction of arches/street sign boards across the roads • • ~ • • • ' • I and direction boards inside various housing colon!es, at the same terms a~d conditions as offered by ~ppel!ant~o;~ith.out details of any of his - • ~ > 1 .I: .. '• ~ I ) .. • project plans, models or scheme. Corporation did not resptmd and he . fr,~- • .. t • ._ .• ·J·~~.it• dll. •~, I appr!>ached High Court with a writ ~fcertiorari.falli.ng for the .~ecords ' ~ ,·. l ~ " •· ~\> t (l1\I.. . . l ··4 c of the Corporation relating to the permission granted to the appellant .. ' t . ~ -~;! • ':"~ ~ . .. ~ - • ,. and to the second respondent or to any other person and declare the same to be ultra-vires the provisions .. of the Hyderabad Mu,nicipal • • . .., • 't J I ' - . • , ~- •. Corporation Act and Article 14 of the Constitution . of India. Single Judge dismi~sed writ petition.' Ori. ~ppea~, Divisio~ B~nch allowed > • i ~ r ~1. ~ l II I .j, same. Hence the present appeal. . ,_ . • •. -- . •• . t ~ Allowing the appeal, the't:ourt ·'' ' I HELD : 1. 'There is no·unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of E power on part of Corporation· so as· tO warrant interference 'under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (207-B] 2. There. is nothing in ·the matter involving any great, public interest, which can justify any public outcry through a public interest F litigation. The desperateness of the.writ petitioner is betrayed by the liberally invented incorrect averments about his alleged approach· to the authorities prior to the filing of writ petition, when the fact remains that notwithstanding public notice for selection of agents for similar work in other areas, he did not respond like others and merely appoached the court feigning ignorance of all that happened. The G manner in which the writ petitioner was attempting to make bald · claims after certain orders were passed by the Division Bench pending fin'~j disposal of the appe~I, t~ explore possibilities orirant Of work in . .• . - •
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.