Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 74 (AP)

Alps Outdoors v. GHMC rep. by its Commissioner

2018-01-30

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Sri N. Ashok Kumar saying he has already filed appearance before the Registry and got written instructions and perused the prayer in the writ petition with the supporting affidavit and the other material on record and the oral instructions of the learned Standing Counsel with reference to which written letter of the Office of the Additional Commissioner, GHMC, in Lr.No.128 dated 06.08.2016. 2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite specific direction of this Court earlier in the earlier round of writs covered by W.P.No.41357 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 particularly directing the writ petitioner to submit explanation to the impugned notice, dated 28.11.2017, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; and therefrom the respondent GHMC authorities shall consider and dispose of the same along with the earlier representation, dated 24.08.2017, of the petitioner within two (02) weeks thereafter, in accordance with the procedure established by law, and communicate the decision within a week thereafter and any right of the Corporation to direct the petitioner to remove the unipole/sky sign and the other contentions covered by the writ petition for determination are left open to raise in future, the respondent authorities by the impugned order/proceedings dated 04.01.2018 in the present writ petition did not apply their mind nor answered the issue objectively, but with a predisposed state of mind in simply reiterating on the main ground of erection is as if so bluntly without taking permission and in violation of Section 420 of GHMC Act in ignorance of the earlier 3 representations of the petitioners left unattended even before erection of the said unipole/sky sign in question. 3. 3. It is the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that there was already a decision taken pursuant to the recommendations of the JNTUH that all the permissions to be accorded on tentative basis with the sole objective of keeping the industry alive without compromising on safety parameters and all hoardings shall eventually be designed, certified and retrofitted in accordance with codes of practice before 31st March 2017 and the specifications as to wall mounted and ground hoardings up to 40 x 25 to permit likewise hoardings on roof tops limited to 30 x 25 on buildings not exceeding two stories are permitted and that too on certification by inspection of the structural engineer under intimation to JNTUH and it is perceived that less risk is involved and permission is tentatively accorded to the agencies to advertise subject to an undertaking by them that in the event of any unfortunate mishap they alone shall be responsible for the consequences of Civil and Criminal liability in accordance with law and the agencies have to be submit for displaying advertisements for ground hoardings, wall attachments and roof top hoardings (upto two stories), displaying single flex, submission of undertaking individually by each and every advertising agency, submission of 3rd party insurance, in case of any accident only individual accountably and not the whole trade. In all other cases like unipoles and for hoardings beyond 30 x 25 on higher roof tops design, certification and rectification shall precede any approval to display advertisements. The agencies have to submit structural stability certificate from GHMC Empanelled engineers and vetting and certification has to be done by JNTU/IIT for allowing displays on uni-poles and for hoardings of sizes beyond 30 x 25 and higher roof tops of above 2nd floor. The above instructions shall be followed by the advertising agencies scrupulously and if any deviations found, the permissions to the said Hoardings will be cancelled and the agency will be backlisted. Beyond that there is nothing to show from the learned Standing Counsel for respondents much less in any correspondence including from the impugned covered order dated 04.01.2018 of no new permissions can be accorded or shifting tantamounts to new permission nor any decision taken of not to shift the existing. 4. Beyond that there is nothing to show from the learned Standing Counsel for respondents much less in any correspondence including from the impugned covered order dated 04.01.2018 of no new permissions can be accorded or shifting tantamounts to new permission nor any decision taken of not to shift the existing. 4. Once such is the case so far as the case on hand concerned, undisputedly there are representations made earlier and a direction in the earlier round of litigation covered by W.P.No.41357 of 2017 including to consider the representation dated 24.08.2017 which is reference No.1 of the earlier writ petition impugning order dated 28.11.2017 which speaks the representation of request for permission to shift the unipole structure from premises covered by road No.1, Banjara Hills, to alternative location of premises covered by road No.12, Banjara Hills, since commercial mall is coming up at the existing location. There was a field inspection report of the advertisement Engineer of Central Zone, GHMC dated 25.09.2017 and the present writ petition impugned order also speaks about the same and at page No.49 it speaks about the report is positive about the feasibility for new erection of unipole and it may not obstruct the nearby Hoardings and unipoles from the electrical distribution line is present in front of the compound wall, hence precautionary measurements to be taken while erection of unipole, if permitted and agency has already laid foundation for erection of unipole at the new location without prior permission from GHMC. It may also be noted that submission of structural safety and stability is a condition precedent to the erection of structure. 5. So far as structural safety and stability concerned, a perusal of the record shows including the representation of the writ petitioner dated 19.12.2017 page No.2 at Para 2 speaks about applied to JNTU for specifying the structural stability and issue a certificate of structural stability in saying Professor Ramana Rao, JNTU is transferred to NIT, Warangal, and one Dr. Maganti Janardhan at JNTU and when they contacted Sri Janardhan and he asked for some documents in both hard and soft copy format and it is in the process of procuring the same and this process will take another period of 2 to 3 weeks is their submission. They sought for permitting to submit structural stability certificate of Dr. Janardhan within a period of 2 weeks from that day on 19.12.2017. They sought for permitting to submit structural stability certificate of Dr. Janardhan within a period of 2 weeks from that day on 19.12.2017. It is not a case of subsequent to the earlier writ petition order dated 07.12.2017 applied for JNTUH to issue structural stability certificate as it was way back in October 2017 as can be seen from the material on record therefrom it shows there is delay in issuing such structural stability certificate by JNTUH. So far as the structural stability certificate obtained subsequent to the impugned proceedings of the respondent dated 04.01.2018, on 11.01.2018 which is also submitted as part of the material papers of the present writ petition and the last para i.e., concluded para of the said certificate of JNTU Director and Chief Engineer, Dr KML Rao and his team shows the proof checking of design and drawings and based on Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) of concrete conducted on the pedestal of the unipole, it is observed that the structure is in safe and stable condition. A Zinc primer may be applied for the anchor bolts that are exposed and grouting of micro-concrete should be done between the base plate and the pedestal. This approval does not absolve the original designer and the consultant and the contractor executing the work of their responsibilities. 6. Thus from the JNTU certificate of structural stability is very clear of structure in safe and stable condition. This approval does not absolve the original designer and the consultant and the contractor executing the work of their responsibilities. 6. Thus from the JNTU certificate of structural stability is very clear of structure in safe and stable condition. Once such is the case, the only thing remained is merely because there is a prior permission for shifting and erection to be obtained and it is erected because of contingencies explained by the writ petitioner in saying earlier the landlord of the hoardings asked for immediate removal and by virtue of the pressure and pursuant to the application also made for in seeking permission that is also covered by reference No.1 of the proceedings of the Commissioner, GHMC, dated 28.11.2017 which is followed by a field inspection report of the GHMC Engineer dated 25.09.2017 in all clearly show not only the structural stability and feasibility, the rejection of the representation consequently in directing to remove the unipole within 7 days by the impugned order of the GHMC (respondent) is thereby unsustainable and set aside with a direction if necessary by imposing penalty and by considering the fact that it is only a shifting of existing and not a new erection, to dispose of with reference to the JNTU report dated 11.01.2018 with reasons and uninfluenced by the factum of the initial erection is contrary to Section 420 of GHMC Act since that will not come in the way for regularization pursuant to this order, needless to say the collection of tax existing or to enhance if necessary is on own merits and with notice & opportunity of hearing. 7. Accordingly and in the result, the Writ Petition is disposed of with above observations. 8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any shall stand closed. No costs.