M/s. Stanpower Technologies, Rep. by its Manager M v. Rayudu, S/o

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.M.M.CHARY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI V.SAWAM REDDY, SC FOR NIZAMABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : G.P FOR HOME The Court made the following ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITIONN 0.22167 0F 2025 ORDER This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "... to issue a Writ o[ Mandamus or any other writ order or direction declaring challenging the orders dated 17 -07 _2025 (received on 2l -07 -2025) of the 2'd respondent thereby tcrminating the agrcement dated 05-01-201t entered with the pelitioner lor Installation and Operation of l0 traffic signals with Surveillance cameras within the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation limits under BOT basis in lieu of proposed erection ol Gantries, T poles and cantilever for advertisement purpose at 25 locations by the petitioner falsely alleging the expiry ol the term of contract of l0 years contrary to thc permission daaed 2l-12-2010 and terms of agreement which clcar[1'stipulates 20 years term but relied on the mistake crept in al Article 2.2 of rhe agreement and also raising false allegations as illegal arbitrary unconstitutional and contrary to the permission of the 2nd respondent dated 2l-12-2O10 and terms of agreement dated 05-01-2011 thereby causing huge and irrecoverable monetary loss to the petitioner and consequently set aside the same directing the respondent no.2 not to interlere with the business and rights of the petitioner in any manner till the completion of 20 years as per the agreement and pass ..." \ \ 2 '!

2. Heard Mr. V.M.M. Chary, leamed counsel lor the petitioner, and Mr. V. Satyam Reddy, leamed standing counsel for the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.2.

3. The background lacts of the case are as under Respondent No.2 enlered into agreement dated 05.0 I .20 I I with the petitioner pursuant to the tender issued by respondent authorities inviting Expression of [nterest for installation and operation of ten ( l0) traffic signals with surveillance cameras within the Nizamabad Municipal Corporation limits under Buitd-Operate- Transfer (BOT) basis in lieu of proposed erection of Gantries, T poles and cantilever for advertisement purpose at twent) five (25) locations. The petitioner has participated in the tender and was awarded contract. Thereafter, agreement dated 0-5.01.2011 was entered into by the petitioner and rcspondent No.2. The petitioner has installed traftic signals, survei[lance cameras at identified junctions of Nizamabad Town; also installed Gantries. 'f-poles and cantilever for advertisement at sixteen ( 16) locations in Nizamabad Town -) It is stated as roads were not commercially viable and did not have any CC road along with median, the petitioner was asked to use the balance 9 advertisement locations as and when the roads are ready. The Traffic Police Department of Nizamabad Town issued satisfaction certificate after completion of work. It is submitted that the petitioner was granted exemption of advertisement tax for twenty (20) years, as the contract period of the petitioner is twenty (20) years. The petitioner had been operating traffic signals and advertisement boards at 16 locations successfully. Respondent No'3 had been periodically inspecting the traffic signals and the petitioner had been attending to the repair works as and when required' Thereafter, in the year 2015 pursuant to the Members of Parliament Local Area Development (MP LAD) Scheme, the petitioner has handed over the maintenance of the CCTV cameras to respondent No.2 which was later handed over to different agency. The traffic signals where CCTV cameras were installed by the petitioner and signals mentioned in MP LAD scheme approval are one and the same, which would substantiate that the CCTV maintenance were =-i-- 4 handed over to a different agency after completion of installation by the Petltloner

4. It is stated that the petitioner had been requcsting respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to install advertisement display boards at the remaining nine (9) locations as per the original permission dated 21.12.2010 and the agreement dated 05.01.20 Il. However, the issue has been kept pending. In the meantime, the traffic signals installed by the petitioner has become old and respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to replace them with new lights. Pursuant to the meetings between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, the petitioner was permitted to replace existing signals and utilize the advertisement boards at nine (9) different locations idcntified by the petitioner, enabling the petitioner to earn expenses spent for replacement of existing traffic signals. The petitioner completed the replacement of' existing traffic signals and letter claled, 23.04.2025 was issued by the Traffic Police Depa(ment to respondent No.2 requesting to grant permission for providing electricity to five (5) stgnals where installation of signals was replaced. ) )

5. It is submitted that after replacing five (5) signals, the petitioner submined representation dated 12.03.2025 to respondent No.2 before commencing the advertisement work, identifoing the locations and completed the major work of installation of advertisement boards at the balance nine (9) locations under regular supervision of the officers of respondent No.2. The work was scheduled to commence on 14.03.2025 and the installation of traffic signals was to be completed within twenty (20) days thereafter. Additionally, the installation of advertisement boards was expected to be completed within ninety (90) days.

6. It is submitted that after completion of total work of installation of traffic signals/lights, at the request of the respondents to avoid inconvenience to the public even without the same being the part of the agreement, when the petitioner almost completed installation of Gantries, T poles and cantilever for advertisement boards at the identified locations, the officers from respondent No.2 visited the installation site on 01.05.2025 without any notice and directed the petitioner only to restrict the usage to old sixteen (16) locations and remove the newly installed boards within three (3) i .'1 6 days. Thereafter, W.P. No. 14821 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner, wherein, the order dated 02.05.2025 was passed by this Court directing respondent No.2 not to interl-ere with the work undertaken by the petitioner, without lollowing duc process of law Further, respondent No.2 was also given liberty to terminate the contract or restrain the petitioner from installing tralfic signals or advertisement boards, by giving prior notice, in accordance with the agreement

7. It is submitted that the petitioner's counsel was served with vacate and counter affidavit along with documents filed by respondent No.2, in the above writ petition, wherein, ir is contended that notice dated 15.05.2025 sent to the petitioner was returned unclaimed and proceedings dated 20.05.2025 was also returned, as the petitioner did not any reply, further action would be taken for termination of contract.

8. It is submitted that even though notice or proceedings were not issued to the petitioner, the petitioner submitted reply dated

02.07.2025 explaining that it was not served with the copies of 7 ) 7 notice and answered each of the allegations and requested respondent No.2 to drop all further proceedings. However, without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, respondent No.2 issued termination proceedings dated 17.07.2025 directing the petitioner to stop all installation works and remove advertisement structures and handover the traffic signals installations along with infrastructure to the Engineering wing of, respondent No.2 within fifteen (15) days.

9. It is contended that impugned proceedings have been issued falsely placing reliance on the Article 2.2 of the agreement wherein it is mistakenly mentioned that authorization period is ten ( l0) years. Several other allegations have been made by respondent No.2 in the impugned proceedings which were never brought to the notice of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 was bent upon to terminate the contract ol the petitioner fbr unknown and obvious reasons.

10. It is submitted that contract of the petitioner is for a period of twenty (20) years. If the contract was for ten (10) years AS t 8 contended by respondent No.2, then the petitioner could not have been permitted to operate tralfic signals and installations after 202 I (i.e., 04.01.2021 after expiry ol l0 years). Recently, the petitioner was granted permission to replace the old existing signals with new signals which shows that respondent No.2 was aware that the contract is lbr twenty (20) years. In several meetings between the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3, respondent No.2 did not raise any issue regarding the expiry of contract of the petitioner. Though, the petitioner never received any written directive to install .traffic signals at Rukmini Chambers Junction (2018), Niktril Sai Junction (2022) and Krishna Mandir Junction (2023) and several new locations, at the request of the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Traffic, installations were made by the petitioner. I l. It is submitted that the petitioner had been operating and maintaining the installations for the last fourteen ( 14) years. The allegations rnade in the impugned proceedings are unwarranted and created for the purpose of arbitrarily cancelling the contract of the petitioner. There were no insLances of the l-raffic Police complaining of signal malfunction at any point o1' time. The 9 petitioner has made huge investments after entering into agreement dated I 0. I I .20 1 l with advertisement company (M/s. Vision Outdoor Media Limited) and arbitrary cancellation of contract would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner.

12. Leamed standing counsel for Nizamabad Municipal Corporation, appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that in due compliance of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.l482 I of 2025 dated. 02.05.2025, representation of the petitioner dated

01.07.2025 was considered and order impugned in this writ petition was passed.

13. Leamed standing counsel submitted that in the Article 2.I and

2.2 of the agreement, it is clearly mentioned that the authorization period of the petitioner is only for ten (10) years. The contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner that authorization period is for twenty (20) years is incorrect and without any evidence on record.

14. [n the earlier round of litigation in W.P. No.14821 of 2025 filed by the petitioner to declare the action of respondent No.2 in interfering with the work relating to installation and operation of l0 Gantries, l' Poles, cantilever for advertisement boards etc. order dated 02.05.2025 was passed, as under "[.earned counsel for the petitioner submittcd that an authorization agreement dated 05.01.201I was cntered into betneen the pctitioner and respondent No.2 - C'orporation. u'hercbl the pctitioner was authorized to install and operatc traffic signals. surveillance cameras, Gantries. l'-Polcs. and Cantilcvcrs lor advertisement boards at ninc idcntified locations in Nizamabad City. Irunher. leamed counsel contcnded that thc licensc of thc potitioncr lor undertaking the installation ol signals. video surveillancc ctc., is valid for a period ol 20 Iears, as evidenced by Condition No. I of the terms and conditions. On the other hand, Iearned Standing Counsel lor Municipal Corporation appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submitted that thc license period for the petitioner is only 10 years. as evidenced by Articles 2.1(c) and 2.2 ol the agrccnrenl. 'fhe leamed counscl fbr the petitioner contended that thcrc ras a typographical error in clauses 2.1 and 2.2. u'herc "10 ycars" was rvrongly mentioned instead of"20 years". The clauscs 2.1 and 2.2 which deals with "authorizatiort period" explicitly state that the license period is lor l0 years lrom the date of execution of the agreement. Thus, cotrtention ol thc leamed counsel lor the petitioner that the licensc period is 20 y'ears appears to be incorrect. However, it needs to be asce(ained why respondent No.2 has not tenninaled thc f / 7 agreement of the petitioner and allowed rhe petitioner to install traflfic signals beyond the year 2021 (ten years period). In view of the foregoing, respondent No.2 is directed not to interlere with the work undertaken by the petitioner for installation and operation of tralfic signals, Gantries, 'f-Poles, and Cantilevers for advertisement boards at the nine identified locations in Nizamabad City. without lollowing due proccss of law. It is made clear, this order shall not prevent respondent No.2 fiom terminating the contract or restraining the petitioner from installing traffic signals or advertisement. boards, by giving prior notice and act in accordance with thc authorization agreement dated 05.0 I .20 I I . List the matter on25.06.2025."

15. It appears that pursuant to the above order, show-cause notice dated 15.05.2025 was issued to the petitioner directing him to explain within fifteen (15) days as to why his agreemenr should not be terminated for non-compliance and non-obseryance of certain rules and regulations. It was pointed out in the show-cause notice that respondent No.2 has verified authorization agreement which shows that the authorization period is ten (10) years as per Article 2.2 therein. The petitioner was also informed in the show- cause notice that there are several events of default committed by l t2 '..1 them (in paragraph No.5 of the show-cause notice dated

15.05.2025). Subsequently, notice dated 27'05'2025 was issued to the petitioncr intbrming that show-cause notice dated l5'05 2025 was issued to the petitioner through registered post on the same day (15.05.2025) and also by e-mail on 17'05'2025, and till date no reply was reccived irom the petitioner' The petitioner was informed that if there is no response, appropriate action will be initiated' [t appears that thereafter, the petitioner has submi$ed detailed reply on 0l.O'. .2025 denying the allegations made in the show-cause notice dated 15.05.1025.

16. In its reply, inter ttlia, it was contended by the petitioner that it has not cornrritted det-ault on terms and conditions of the operation of the agreement is twenty (20) years and agreement. not ten (10) vcars. On consideration of the reply/representation of -l'he the petitioner dated 01.07.2025, order impugned in this writ petition is passed-

17. The contentions raised in W.P. No'14821 of 2025 have been reiterated by the tearned counsel for the petitioner and it is argued 13 that there is violation of principles of natural justice and that period of contract is twenty (20) years but not ten (10) years' Learned counsel placed reliance on the proceedings of respondent No'2 vide proceedings No.Gl1707712010 dated 22'122OlO' wherein' the petitioner was informed that advertisement tax is waived for a period of twenty (20) years' Learned counsel also referred to Clause I of the terms and conditions which shows that scheme is enlorceable for license period oftwenty (20) years from the date of agreement.

18.Ontheotherhand,leamedstandingcounselforrespondent No.2, placed reliance on Article 2'2 of the agreement which speaks about the authorization period, and contended that there is typographical error in the agreement and the petitioner is taking undue advantage of the typographical error' The relevant Articles in so far as tenure of the agreement is concemed are Articles 2' 1 and 2.2 which clearly show that the authorization period is for ten (10) years. Moreover, the contentions regarding defautt and violations committed by the petitioner cannot be a subject matter of this writ petition as they are disputed questions of fact and the petitioner has l4 to be relegated to Civit court jurisdiction. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that Articte 2.1 and 2.2 refer to authorization period as ten ( l0) years and same was observed in the order passed by this Court in W.I']. No. 14821 of 2025 dated02'05'2025' lg. There are also allegations regarding non-compliance of the terms and conditions of the agreement which is denied by the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to go into the merits of such allegations and counter allegations. The respondent No'2 asserts that authorization is only fbr a period of ten ( 10) years as per Article

2.1 and 2.2 of the agreement, and there are serious disputes regarding interpretation of terms of the agreement more particularly the continuance ol the term and violation/non-compliance of the terms and conditions. Such issues cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction and are rvithin the realm of civil law jurisdiction' Hence, this Cou( is not inclined to entertain this writ petition'

20. However, taking note of the fact that the petitioner continued the work even after 2021 (after expiry of l0 years as per Articles 2l.l and 2.2), in the interest of justice, respondent No 2 is directed r l5 not to give effect to the impugned terminatiol order vide Proc.No.G I /7077 1201012025 dated, 17 .07 .2025, for a period of four (4) weeks from today. Within this time, the petitioner is directed to institute suit before the competent Court and seek for appropriate interim orders. The Trial Court shall pass orders{udgment in the suit so filed by the petitioner, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order 21 . With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the writ petition stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The PrinciP al Secretary, MuniciP al Administration an Urban DeveloPment Departmen t, Secretariat Buildings, State of Telangan a at Hyderabad The Comm issioner, Nizamabad Municipal CorPoration' Nizamabad The Assistant Commissioner of Po lice (Traffic), Nizama bad Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 2 3 4 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME' High Court for the State of Telangana at 6. One CC to SRI V.SATYAM REDDY, SC FOR NIZAMABAD MUNICIPAL Hyderabad. [OUT] CORPORATION, Advocate (OPUC)

7. One CC to SRI V.M.M.CHARY' Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CD CoPies SA PVL @- C.C. TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:3010712025 THE.qIA 1 2 At]B 2025 * oi-. z o t. * ORDER WP.No.22167 o12025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. rllI \7 q