Judgment : 1. Writ Petition No.18052 of 2012 is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in trying to remove the unipoles at police lands 1) Khairatabad Intelligence office site, 2) Punjagutta Police Station, 3) Police Control Room and 4) Rasoolpura Cross Roads at Hyderabad as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the 1st respondent not to remove the unipoles. 2. Writ Petition No.21361 of 2012 is filed seeking to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in addressing letter R.C.No.196/VI/09, dated 13-09-2011 to the 4th respondent as illegal and arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and consequently set aside the letter No.604//AD3/Advt/GHMC/2011/106, dated 28-05-2012 of the 4th respondent. 3. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.18052 of 2012 that 1st respondent invited advertising agencies to submit their bids for erection of advertisement hoardings/unipoles at various locations on police department lands at Hyderabad. The petitioner submitted its offer and similarly other advertisement agencies also submitted their offers. The 1st respondent was pleased to allot four locations namely; 1) Khairatabad Intelligence office site, 2) Punjagutta Police Station, 3) Police Control Room and 4) Rasoolpura Cross Roads at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘locations’). The petitioner initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently the 1st respondent entered into Memo of Understanding (for short ‘MOU’) with the petitioner for a further period of 3 years. The petitioner was permitted to display advertisements on enhanced rentals by the 1st respondent. The petitioner paid the rental amounts and he is entitled to display advertisements up to 2012. The petitioner is displaying its customers advertisements i.e., S.B.I., Airtel and Fitzee. While so, the subordinates of the 1st respondent suddenly started removing unipoles without issuing any notice. On coming to know about the high-handed action of the employees, the petitioner objected for removal. The petitioner was not given any notice for removal of unipoles. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner paid the amounts to the 1st respondent and if there are any arrears, the petitioner is ready to pay the same. Hence, the writ petition. 4. The petitioner was not given any notice for removal of unipoles. Therefore, the action of the 1st respondent is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner paid the amounts to the 1st respondent and if there are any arrears, the petitioner is ready to pay the same. Hence, the writ petition. 4. 1st respondent filed detailed counter-affidavit inter alia stating that Government issued G.O.Rt.No.320, Home (WNT) Department, dated 18-03-2003 according permission to the Director General of Police for erection of unipoles by the two advertisement agencies at four places in the police premises. Three unipoles were erected w.e.f. August 2004. Due to unwillingness of the Intelligence Department, the unipole at fourth location was not erected. The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1719, Home (WNT) Department, dated 20-11-2007 issued orders withdrawing the earlier order in G.O.Rt.No.320, dated 18-03-2003 as the three years period for the erection of unipoles was elapsed and directed the 1st respondent to select a new agency through open bid system for erection of unipoles for three years with an annual increase @ 15% and to deposit the amount earned in the Government account. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 1st respondent, the Government by its proceedings, dated 22-01-2008 extended permission for five months for continuation of unipoles at Begumpet Police Lines and Begumpet Police Station i.e., from 01-10-2007 to 28-02-2008 and three months at Rasoolpura cross roads i.e., from 01-12-2007 to 28-02-2008 and thereafter, no extension was given to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. It is also stated that the unipoles erected at Begumpet Police Lines and Begumpet Police Station were removed in the moth of March, 2008, but the unipole erected at Rasoolpura cross roads has not been removed. The petitioner was directed to remove the unipole. As per the MOU, dated 31-07-2006, two years renewal was given from 14-12-2006. Thereafter, no extension was given to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. The contention of the petitioner that the petitioner herein initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of three years and subsequently the 1st respondent entered into MOU with the petitioner for a further period of three years is not correct. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to carry on the business in the said premises. The respondents also removed hoardings/unipoles by 18-06-2012 and is taking steps to issue tender notification to lease out the said four premises. Therefore, the petitioner has no legal right to carry on the business in the said premises. The respondents also removed hoardings/unipoles by 18-06-2012 and is taking steps to issue tender notification to lease out the said four premises. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition No.21361 of 2012 that the 1st respondent was pleased to allot four locations namely; 1) Khairatabad Intelligence office site, 2) Punjagutta Police Station, 3) Police Control Room and 4) Rasoolpura Cross Roads at Hyderabad. The petitioner initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of 3 years. Subsequently the 1st respondent entered into MOU with the petitioner for a further period of 3 years. The petitioner was permitted to display advertisements on enhanced rentals by the 1st respondent. The petitioner paid the rental amounts and he is entitled to display advertisements up to December, 2012. The 1st respondent for the reasons best known to him, addressed a letter, dated 13-09-2012 to the petitioner and requested payment of amount up to December, 2012. Having addressed a letter, the 1st respondent ought not to have addressed a letter to the 4th respondent. Pursuant to the communication of the 1st respondent, 4th respondent issued proceedings, dated 28-05-2012 rejecting the application submitted for advertisement fee. Hence, the writ petition. 6. 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit stating that the petitioner submitted renewal application in Form II (A) for the year 2012-2013 by enclosing copy of the letter, dated 07-05-2012 addressed to the 1st respondent. The petitioner did not submit any documents to show the extension of lease period by the 1st respondent in four places. The procedure adopted for grant of permission is that, the intending agency has to submit the following documents to process the proposal. 1.Form-II (Application-cum-self declaration-cum-Return for permission of Hoardings/Unipole) 2. NOC of landlord (in case of private property) 3. Allotment letter/ order (in case of Govt. Dept., Properties) 4. Copy of property tax receipt. 5.Structural Stability Certificate from GHMC empanneled Structural Engineer. 6. Structural Design and location plan. As the petitioner failed to submit lease deed or NOC in respect of four locations, the Corporation has rightly rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Dept., Properties) 4. Copy of property tax receipt. 5.Structural Stability Certificate from GHMC empanneled Structural Engineer. 6. Structural Design and location plan. As the petitioner failed to submit lease deed or NOC in respect of four locations, the Corporation has rightly rejected the renewal application of the petitioner. Hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that there is no dispute with regard to the factual aspects of the case, that the contract is in the nature of licence and even in contractual matters, the action of the State or its instrumentality must be fair and reasonable, that when the offer made by the petitioner has been accepted by the 1st respondent, it has no authority to remove the unipoles without giving any notice, that without assigning any reasons, the officers of the 1st respondent high-handedly removed the unipoles, that having accepted the lease amount, the 1st respondent now cannot turn round in demolishing the unipoles, that basing on the principle of promissory estoppel, the 1st respondent is debarred from removing the unipoles and hence, he prays to permit the petitioner to erect unipoles as the unipoles were removed after filing of the writ petition. 8. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, that the contract period of the petitioner was completed in the year 2008, that as a matter of fact in the year 2008 itself, the Government had taken a decision to call for the tenders for erection of unipoles by open bids, that the 1st respondent is not empowered to accept the money from the petitioners towards advertisement charges as the 2nd respondent has not given any permission or authorization to 1st respondent to extend the lease in favour of the petitioner after 2008 and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 9. Learned standing counsel for the Municipal Corporation contended that since the petitioner failed to produce required documents, the application of the petitioner was rejected, that the procedure being followed to collect the licence fee is the same in respect of all other advertising agencies and therefore, there is no arbitrariness on the part of the 4th respondent in passing the impugned order in W.P.No.21361 of 2012 and hence, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. 10. In pursuance of the letters dated 01-01-2003 and 06-02-2003 submitted by the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad, the 2nd respondent accorded permission to the 1st respondent for allowing the petitioner and Ad Agency, Hyderabad to erect unipoles at four places as per G.O.Rt.No.320, dated 18-03-2003. As per the proceedings of the 1st respondent, dated 22-03-2003, the above two agencies were informed to obtain necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent also informed the Government that the unipoles were erected only at Begumpet Police Lines, Begumpet Police Station and Rasoolpura Cross roads. Due to unwillingness of the Intelligence Department, unipole at the fourth location was not erected. Subsequently, unipole at that place was also erected. The Government vide G.O.Rt.No.1719, Home (WNT) Department, dated 20-11-2007 had withdrawn the orders issued in G.O.Rt.No.320, dated 18-03-2003 as the three years period of erection of unipoles expired by August, 2004 and the Government further directed 4th respondent to select new agency in a open bid system for three years @ 15% annual increase and deposit the amount earned in the Government account. In pursuance of the letter addressed by the 1st respondent, dated 01-12-2007, the Government by its proceedings, dated 22-01-2008 extended permission for five months for continuation of unipoles at Begumpet Police Lines and Begumpet Police Station from 01-10-2007 to 28-02-2008 and three months at Rasoolpura cross roads from 01-12-2007 to 28-02-2008. Therefore, as per the proceedings, dated 22-01-2008, the petitioner has got a permission for continuation of unipoles up to 28-02-2008. Thereafter, no extension was given by 2nd respondent to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. 11. Therefore, as per the proceedings, dated 22-01-2008, the petitioner has got a permission for continuation of unipoles up to 28-02-2008. Thereafter, no extension was given by 2nd respondent to the petitioner for continuation of unipoles. 11. Though it is stated by the petitioner that the 1st respondent invited advertising agencies to submit their bids for erection of advertisement hoardings/unipoles at various locations on police department lands at Hyderabad, that thereafter the petitioner submitted its offer and similarly other advertisement agencies also submitted their offers, that the 1st respondent was pleased to allot four locations to the petitioner, that the petitioner initially entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of 3 years, that subsequently the 1st respondent entered into MOU with the petitioner for a further period of 3 years and that the petitioner was permitted to display advertisements on enhanced rentals by the 1st respondent, but the petitioner has not filed any single document i.e., copy of the tender notification or submission of bids by various agencies or permission to erect unipoles in four different locations to the petitioner or MOU entered into by the petitioner with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of three years or the 1st respondent entering into MOU with the petitioner for a further period of three years to show that there is existing contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. The said aspect of the case has been specifically denied by the 1st respondent in the counter. Therefore, there is obligation on the part of the petitioner to submit the aforementioned documents to show that there is existing contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. To this extent, the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition prima facie can be said to be a false or misleading. This appears to have stated purposefully to get the relief in the writ petition. 12. It is well settled that once State or Instrumentality of State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation under law to act fairly, justly and reasonably, which is the requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, the requirement of the said Article being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably. There is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. 13. In other words, the requirement of the said Article being the duty to act fairly, justly and reasonably. There is nothing which militates against the concept of requiring the State always to so act, even in contractual matters. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on a decision reported in NOBLE RESOURCES LTD V STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER ( (2006) 10 SCC 236 ), wherein it was held thus (para 14): “THE Respondent No.2 is a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Its conduct in all fields including a contract is expected to be fair and reasonable. It was not supposed to act arbitrarily, capriciously or whimsically.” Since it is the case of the petitioner that there was a breach of contract, the Court may not ordinarily exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial review unless it is shown to have been violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 14. He further relied on a decision reported in ASHA SHARMA V CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS ( (2011) 10 SCC 86 ), wherein it was held thus (para 14): “ACTION by the State, whether administrative or executive, has to be fair and in consonance with the statutory provisions and rules. Even if no rules are in force to govern executive action still such action, especially if it could potentially affect the rights of the parties, should be just, fair and transparent. Arbitrariness in State action, even where the rules vest discretion in an authority, has to be impermissible. The exercise of discretion, in line with principles of fairness and good governance, is an implied obligation upon the authorities, when vested with the powers to pass orders of determinative nature. The standard of fairness is also dependant upon certainty in State action, that is, the class of persons, subject to regulation by the Allotment Rules, must be able to reasonably anticipate the order for the action that the State is likely to take in a given situation. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even if the determinative factors of the situations in question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.” 15. Arbitrariness and discrimination have inbuilt elements of uncertainty as the decisions of the State would then differ from person to person and from situation to situation, even if the determinative factors of the situations in question were identical. This uncertainty must be avoided.” 15. He further relied on a decision reported in STATE OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS V K.SHYAM SUNDER AND OTHERS ( (2011) 8 SCC 737 ), wherein it was held thus (paras 50 and 51)” “IN Ajay Hasia and Ors. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors., AIR 1981 SC 487 , this Court held that Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness because an action that is arbitrary, must necessarily involve negation of equality. Whenever therefore, there is arbitrariness in State action, whether it be of the legislature or of the executive, Article 14 immediately springs into action and strikes down such State action. (See also : E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., AIR 1974 SC 555 ; and Smt. Meneka Gandhi v. Union of INdia and Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597 ). (36.) IN M/s. Sharma Transport rep. by D.P. Sharma v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR 2002 SC 322 , this Court defined arbitrariness observing that party has to satisfy that the action was not reasonable and was manifestly arbitrary. The expression 'arbitrarily' means; act done in an unreasonable manner, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure without adequate determining principle, not founded in the nature of things, non-rational, not done or acting according to reason or judgment, depending on the will alone.” 16. He further relied on a decision reported in ABL INTERNATIONAL LTD. AND ANOTHER V EXPORFT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., AND OTHERS ( (2004) 3 SCC 553 ), wherein it was held thus (paras 23 and 27): “IT is clear from the above observations of this Court, once State or an instrumentality of State is a party to the contract, it has an obligation in law to act fairly, justly and reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if by the impugned repudiation of the claim of the appellants the first respondent as an instrumentality of the State has acted in contravention of the above said requirement of Article 14 then we have no hesitation that a writ court can issue suitable directions to set right the arbitrary actions of the first respondent FROM the above discussion of ours, following legal principles emerge as to the maintainability of a writ petition :- (a) In an appropriate case, a writ petition as against a State or an instrumentality of a State arising out of a contractual obligation is maintainable. (b) Merely because some disputed questions of facts arise for consideration, same cannot be a ground to refuse to entertain a writ petition in all cases as a matter of rule. (c) A writ petition involving a consequential relief of monetary claim is also maintainable.” 17. From the above decisions, it is clear that the action of the State should be fair and reasonable and should not be arbitrary. The contract entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is not in exercise of any statutory power under certain Acts or Rules framed there under. The petitioner alleges that there is breach of contract on the part of the State. As seen from the pleadings, it is clear that the contract between the parties is not statutory, but purely contractual and the rights and the liabilities of the parties are governed by the terms of the contract. When a contract relates to a mere breach of contract pure and simple, the aggrieved party may approach a civil Court and the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not appropriate. 18. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents relied on a decision reported in JAGDISH MANDAL V STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS ()(2007) 14 SCC 517, wherein it was held thus (para 22): “Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonablenss, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made “lawfully” and not to check whether choice or decision is “sound”. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract, is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract, is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review. Interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil Court. Attempts by unsuccessful tendererrs with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions: (i) whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone; or Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say; “the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached”; (ii) Whether public interest is affected. If the answers are in negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of license, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action.” From the above decision, it is clear that if the answers to the questions as pointed out by the apex Court are in negative, there should be no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. 19. She further relied on a decision reported in TATA CELLULAR V UNION OF INDIA ( (1994) 6 SCC 651 ), wherein it was held thus (Para 5): “The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision can be tested by the application of the “Wednesbury principle’ of reasonableness and the decision should be free from arbitrariness, not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides.” Dictionary meaning of fairness is treating the people equally without favourtism or discrimination. Arbitrariness means a conduct or act based alone upon once will and not upon any course of reasoning and exercise of judgment. The Courts are always disposed to intervene where action is arbitrary. A predisposition to decide for or against one party without proper regard to the true merits of the dispute is bias. Before a decision is invalidated, bias must be shown to have been present or where a reasonable person would have a reasonable suspicion from the circumstances of the case that bias might have infected the decision. Mala fide may mean want of good faith, personal prejudice, grudge, ill will, improper, ulterior purpose or dishonest intention. 20. She further relied on a decision reported in AIR INDIA LTD V COCHIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD AND OTHERS ( (2000) 2 SCC 617 ), wherein it was held thus (para 7)” “But the State, is corporations, instrumentalities and agencies are bound to adhere to the norms, standards and procedures laid down by them and cannot depart from them arbitrarily. Though that decision is not amenable to judicial review, the Court can examine the decision making process and interfere if it is found vitiated by mala fides, unreasonableness and arbitrariness. THE State, is corporations, instrumentalities and agencies have the public duty to be fair to all concerned. Even when some defect is found in the decision making process the Court must exercise its discretionary power under Article 226 with great caution and should exercise it only in furtherance of public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. THE Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. THE Court should always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its intervention is called for or not. Only when it comes to a conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene.” 21. It is not the case of the petitioner that the State has not acted arbitrarily, unfairly or malafidely or with bias. The Government issued G.O.Rt.No.1719, Home (WNT) Department, dated 20-11-2007 wherein it is specifically stated that Government have decided and accordingly hereby order to withdraw the orders issued in the G.O. 1st cited above (i.e., G.O.Rt.No.320, dated 18-03-2003) with immediate effect as the three years period of the Advertising Agencies for erection of Unipoles is over by August, 2007. The Government also directed to select new agencies through open bid system for three years at 15% annual increase and deposit the amount earned in the Government account. The Director General of Police shall take immediate follow up action and report compliance to Government. The said G.O. is not under challenge before this Court. Such is the case, there is absolutely no authority or jurisdiction for the 1st respondent to correspond with the petitioner in any manner including issuance of impugned proceedings, dated 13-09-2011 directing the petitioner to pay rents for the four locations for the year 2011-2012 with 7.5% additional increment positively by 14-12-2011. In pursuance of the said proceedings, the petitioner paid total rents for the four locations i.e, Rs.38,71,344/-/ by way of Demand Draft on 02-11-2011. The proceedings of the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction and consequential compliance of those proceedings by the petitioner is of no consequence and such compliance does not confer any right of whatsoever on the petitioner. There is a total dereliction of duty on the part of the 1st respondent in not calling for open bids in respect of subject issue. For the reasons best known to the 1st respondent, it allowed the petitioner to display the hoardings. The act or omission of 1st respondent is nothing but dereliction of duty. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent committed breach of promise and assurance by the State or its instrumentality can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The act or omission of 1st respondent is nothing but dereliction of duty. 22. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the 1st respondent committed breach of promise and assurance by the State or its instrumentality can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Doctrine of promissory estoppel has no application to the present facts of the case because the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the property has not given any assurance to the petitioner to continue to display the advertisement boards/unipoles. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent by its proceedings, dated 20-11-2007 made it clear to the 1st respondent to select a new agency through open bid system. So long as that G.O.Rt.No.1719, dated 20-11-2007 in force, the 1st respondent has no authority or jurisdiction of whatsoever to correspond with the petitioner in respect of payment of rentals for display of hoardings at the four locations. Furthermore, the contract entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent is not in exercise of some statutory power creating rights and obligations of a statutory nature. Even if there is no statutory contract, the case of petitioner does not fall under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The case relates to breach of contract pure and simple. There is no breach of contract because the contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent expired by 28-02-2008. Therefore, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are wholly untenable and devoid of merit. The petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. Suppressing the factum of expiry of lease by 28-02-2008, the petitioner is intended to continue the lease for another period of three years though there is no contract subsisting between the parties. It is a clear case where the petitioner gave false statement as mentioned in para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. Basing on the false statement, this Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the sites of four locations and submit report with regard to the existence or non existence of unipoles for the reason that the petitioner entered into agreement with the 1st respondent on 14-04-2012 for a period of three years for erection of advertising agencies/unipoles at the four locations. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 23. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 23. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.18052 of 2012 is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) to be payable to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 24. In respect of other Writ Petition, a procedure has been adopted by the Municipal Corporation for grant of permission to collect licence fee as per Section 420 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, but that Section does not provide for any procedure to be followed, but in general, the Corporation has adopted a procedure for grant of permission, the agencies have to submit certain documents. Since the petitioner has not submitted anyone of the required documents, the rejection order was passed by the 4th respondent and the same needs no interference by this Court. In view of order passed in Writ Petition No.18052 of 2012 that there is no existing contract between the petitioner and the 1st respondent, no direction can be given to the 1st respondent to give permission. Therefore, Writ Petition No.21361 of 2012 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed. 25. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.