Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17712 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2139 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)
IN WP No. 17712/2025: BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O LATE GOVINDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.361, 9TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, NAGARBHAVI 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072 PH: 9845531374 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.321, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001 REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2.
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 0012 REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER
RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SUBSTITUTED BY RESPONDENT NO.6 TO 10 AS PER
ORDER DATED 12.11.2025.
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL DIVISION, BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
4.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE SPECIAL DIVISION, BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
5.
THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER, REVENUE AND ADVERTISEMENT, BBMP, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
6.
BENGALURU NORTH CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560092.
7.
BENGALURU SOUTH CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.
8.
BENGALURU CENTRAL CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.
9.
BENGALURU EAST CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU-560025.
10. BENGALURU WEST CORPORATION GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 18TH CROSS ROAD, IDEAL HOME’S LAYOUT, R.R. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098. …RESPONDENTS
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;
SRI DIVYATHEJ A.B., ADVOCATE FOR THE IMPLEADING APPLICANT VIDE
ORDER DATED 12.11.2025, RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SUBSTITUTED WITH THE CONCERNED RESPONDENTS IN THE APPLICATION - I.A. NO.2/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.EE/RI-TEC/PR/161/2025-26 DATED 31.05.2025 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
IN WP NO. 2139/2021: BETWEEN:
SRI. RAVINDRA KUMAR SON OFLATE GOVINDASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, NO.361, 9TH CROSS, 6TH BLOCK, NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BENGALURU-560072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESH MAHALE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ROOM NO.321, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
2.
THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
3.
THE CHIEF ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE - SPECIAL DIVISION, ROOM NO.106, ANNEXE BUILDING-3, BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
4.
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE -SPECIAL DIVISION ROOM NO.106, ANNEXE BUILDING-3, BBMP HEAD OFFICE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER DATED 15.12.2020 BEARING NO.KA.PA.AA/RA.MOO.SOW/ TEC/PR/524/2020-21 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
In W.P. No.17712/202, the petitioner has challenged an endorsement bearing No.EE/R1-TEC/PR/161/2025-26 dated 31.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.4, by which, the request of the petitioner for extension of the contractual period was rejected. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the contractual period under the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 is to be reckoned from 09.02.2022 till 08.02.2027 and to permit the petitioner to display advertisements in the seventeen underpasses as per the contract. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to declare that the contractual period under the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 is to be reckoned from 27.06.2024 till 27.06.2029 and to permit the petitioner to advertise in the six underpasses at Lulu Mall, Rajajinagar, Housing Board KHB, Madiwala, Tagore Circle near Basavanagudi, H.A.L and Kundanahalli. - 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
2. In W.P. No.2139/2021, the petitioner, who is common in both the petitions, has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice bearing No.PÁ.¥Á.C/gÀ.ªÀÄÆ.¸Ë/nE¹/¦Dgï/524/2020-21 dated 15.12.2020 issued by the respondent No.4 by which, the petitioner was called upon not to undertake any work of installation of advertisement panels, in respect of 23 underpasses mentioned therein, until further orders in the light of the communication bearing No.£ÀCE 151 JAJ£ïAiÀÄÄ 2020 dated 06.07.2020 issued by the State / Development Authority which had raised an objection regarding the contract entered into by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short, ‘BBMP’) with the petitioner. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the notice bearing No.PÁ.¥Á.C/gÀ.ªÀÄÆ.¸Ë/nE¹/¦Dgï/578/2020-21 dated 22.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 by which, the petitioner was called upon to stop all activities and not to display advertisement panels in the 23 underpasses that were entrusted to him failing which, disciplinary action would be taken against him. - 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
3. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.4 had invited tenders from the general public for maintenance of underpasses in Bengaluru City vide notification dated
06.07.2017. The petitioner submitted his quotation which was accepted by the respondent No.4. A letter of acceptance dated 22.08.2017 was issued by the respondent No.4.
A contemporaneous agreement was entered into between the respondent No.4 and the petitioner on 24.08.2017 in respect of the work of “Maintenance of Underpass in BBMP jurisdiction” at (henceforth referred to as ‘the work’) and remedying of any defects thereon at a Annual Concession Fee of Rs.8,02,085/- for 23 locations as per the quotation notification. It was agreed between the parties that the said agreement was valid for 11 months from the date of the agreement. It was also mentioned in the agreement dated 24.08.2017 that the contractual period could be extended for three more years on terms that may be mutually agreed upon between the petitioner and the respondent No.4. A Work Order was thereafter issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner on 24.08.2017 and the petitioner was directed to proceed with the execution of the work in accordance with the contractual commitments. The
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
petitioner claims that after entering into the agreement dated 24.08.2017, the respondent Nos.2 and 4 in the meeting held on 30.08.2017, unanimously decided to extend the contractual period from 11 months to a period of five years in respect of 23 underpasses in BBMP jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. The respondent No.4 also issued a demand notice dated 26.10.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.9,22,405/-. The petitioner purportedly made the payments by way of two demand drafts dated 27.10.2017 and 30.10.2017 respectively. Following the extension of the contractual period, the respondent No.4 issued a supplementary work order dated 26.02.2018 permitting the petitioner to proceed with the execution of the work at 23 locations in accordance with the contract documents for a period of five years as approved by the Council Resolution dated 30.08.2017. 4. The petitioner claims that he had taken up the maintenance of the 23 underpasses as agreed under the agreement and had invested substantially for installation of advertisement panels etc.
After the 23 underpasses were inspected, a report was given that the petitioner had executed the work as per the specified terms and a work completion
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
certificate was issued by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner on 04.06.2018. The petitioner claimed that he received a letter dated 27.09.2018 from the respondent No.4 to temporarily hold the work of maintenance of 23 underpasses from 27.09.2018 until further orders from the respondent No.2 in W.P. No.2139/2021 in view of a prohibitory order from this Court. It was also informed that the jurisdictional Zonal Executive Engineers would take care of the 23 underpasses. The petitioner challenged the said communication dated 27.09.2018 issued by the respondent No.4 before this Court in W.P. No.15492/2019 and W.P Nos.17871-17874/2019. In the meanwhile, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.361 and 631-734 of 2019 filed by the BBMP had lifted the ban on installation of advertisement panels in the subject underpasses in terms of the order dated 07.02.2019 and the said writ petitions were allowed on 27.03.2019 and therefore, having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for BBMP that the new bye-laws had come into force from 14.01.2020 and the endorsement impugned therein shall be reconsidered in the light of bye-law No.3.11.2, W.P. No.15492/2019 and W.P Nos.17871-17874/2019 were disposed off by a coordinate
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
Bench of this Court by an order dated 27.01.2020 directing the respondent – BBMP to reconsider the endorsement impugned therein within the time stipulated therein. The petitioner claims that he thereafter approached the BBMP authorities to consider and issue an order to recommence the work. The respondent No.4 then entered into a Supplementary Agreement dated 07.05.2020 and authorized the petitioner to execute the work in continuation of the agreement No.EE/RI/SPL/AG/38/2017-18 dated 04.10.2017 for a period of five years from the date of signing the supplementary agreement. Following this, the respondent No.4 issued a supplementary work order dated 07.05.2020 for the maintenance of 23 underpasses to the petitioner.
The petitioner claims that while he was carrying out the work, he received letters dated 15.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 from the respondent No.4 not to carry on with the work and to cease from all work until further orders. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court in W.P. No.2139/2021. 5. This Court in terms of an order dated 08.02.2021 passed in W.P. No.2139/2021, had directed the BBMP not to take any precipitative action pursuant to Annexures 'A' and 'B', which are notices dated 15.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 issued by
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
the respondent No.4. The petitioner is maintaining the underpasses from 09.02.2022. The petitioner alleged that despite the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court in W.P No.2139/2021, the respondent authorities did not allow him to maintain the underpasses and therefore, he was constrained to file a contempt petition before this Court in C.C.C No.562/2021 (Civil). In the said contempt petition, a Chief Engineer, Road Infrastructure - Special Division, BBMP, filed an affidavit dated 09.02.2022 inter alia stating that the petitioner was exhibiting his advertisements in the 23 locations mentioned in the notices dated 15.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 and that the BBMP authorities had not taken any precipitative action in view of the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court in the subject writ petition i.e. W.P. No.2139/2021. It was also stated that until the disposal of W.P. No.2139/2021, the BBMP would not take any precipitative action. Having regard to the undertaking given by learned counsel for the BBMP that till the disposal of the writ petition, BBMP would not take any precipitative action, the Division Bench of this Court dropped the contempt proceedings against the accused therein in terms of the order dated 13.12.2022. - 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
6.
It is stated that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2139/2021 and the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.C.C. No.562/2021, the respondent authorities did not allow the petitioner to execute the ongoing maintenance work Hence, the petitioner made a representation dated 21.10.2024 to the respondent No.3 requesting permission to proceed with the work of maintenance of underpasses in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P. No.2139/2021 and in pursuance of the affidavit dated 09.02.2022 filed by the respondent No.3. 7. It appears that the petitioner had filed W.P. No.30290/2024 inter alia for a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to compute the period of five years as per the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 executed by the respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner with effect from 09.02.2022 when the Chief Engineer, Road Infrastructure- Special Division, BBMP, filed an affidavit before this Court in C.C.C No.562/2021. This Court in terms of an order dated 16.01.2025 passed in W.P. No.30290/2024, disposed off the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to consider the
- 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
request of the petitioner to compute the period of five years as per the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 with effect from 09.02.2022 in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within the time stipulated therein. It is further stated that the petitioner filed W.P. No.12075/2025 before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 4 therein to compute the period of five years of the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 starting from 09.02.2022 until 08.02.2027, in consonance with representations dated 22.01.2025 and 08.04.2025. In the said writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court in terms of the order dated 29.05.2025, directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 therein not to precipitate the matter till 02.06.2025.
Following this direction, the respondents considered the request of the petitioner and rejected his request in terms of the endorsement dated 31.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 which is challenged in W.P No.17712/2025. 8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was entitled for a five year tenure to maintain the 23 underpasses, which is evident from the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020. He contends that
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
the petitioner was restrained from executing the work and maintaining the 23 underpasses until the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 was executed. He contends that despite the supplementary agreement, the petitioner was not permitted to maintain the underpasses which compelled the petitioner to file a contempt petition in C.C.C. No.562/2021, where an affidavit was filed by the Chief Engineer, Road Infrastructure – Special Division, BBMP, on 09.02.2022 undertaking that the respondent authorities would not disturb the petitioner maintaining the 23 underpasses till the disposal of W.P. No.2139/2021. He, therefore, contends that the period of five years as per the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 has to be reckoned from 09.02.2022. Thus, he contends that the endorsement dated 31.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.4 impugned in W.P. No.17712/2025, is liable to be quashed as the petitioner is not given the benefit of five years which was agreed by the respondents in terms of the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020. 9. The petitions are opposed by the respondents who primarily contend that the tenure of the contract under which the work was entrusted to the petitioner has expired and
- 15 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
therefore, the petitioner cannot compel them to extend the contractual period beyond the terms agreed under the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020. 10. In W.P. No.17712/2025,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo stating that in view of the letter submitted by the petitioner to the said respondents, the writ petition did not survive for consideration. A copy of the letter dated nil stated to be addressed by the petitioner and received in the office of the Chief Commissioner, Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) on 24.09.2025 was enclosed therewith. 11. The petitioner filed statement of objections to the said memo dated 10.11.2025 stating that he had not written the said letter to the Chief Commissioner, GBA, and that the said letter was filed by the respondents to mislead the Court and to cause irreparable loss and injury to the petitioner and make unlawful gain for the impleading applicant. The petitioner further stated that he has filed a separate application (I.A. No.3/2025) to initiate proceedings under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, against the
- 16 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
respondents. Thus, he sought for rejection of the memo dated
10.11.2025. 12. Learned senior counsel for the contesting respondent(s) submitted that the petitioner cannot be permitted to continue with the maintenance of the 23 underpasses beyond the time agreed under the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020. He also contends that the question whether the petitioner was prevented from executing the contract or not, is a disputed question of fact which may not be adjudicated upon in a writ petition and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Civil Court in case, if the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 is breached by the respondent authorities. He also contends that now that the term of the contract under which the petitioner was entrusted with work has come to an end, it is up to the respondent authorities to decide the way in which, the underpasses have to be maintained. He contends that the respondents are contemplating issuing appropriate notifications inviting bids from the general public to maintain the 23 underpasses. - 17 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
13. An application (I.A. No.4/2025) for impleading in W.P. No.17712/2025 is filed by Mr. Dinesh Kumar, who appears to be the competitor of the petitioner and interested in taking on the work of maintaining the 23 underpasses in the event, the respondents issue a notification.
14. I have considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned senior counsel for the BBMP in both these petitions and the learned senior counsel for the impleading applicant in W.P. No.17712/2025. 15. In so far as the impleading application – I.A. No.4/2025 is concerned, it is mentioned in the application that the applicant is a competitor, who was interested to take on the works if the respondent - BBMP invites tenders. The role of the impleading applicant in this writ petition is not warranted as the writ petition could be disposed off even in the absence of the impleading applicant. Hence, the application – I.A. No.4/2025 filed by the impleading applicant is rejected. - 18 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
16. In so far as the contentions urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are concerned, though this Court in W.P No.2139/2021, had passed an interim order dated 08.02.2021, the petitioner had not placed on record any material to show that from 08.02.2021, he was prevented from maintaining the 23 underpasses or in carrying out installation of advertisement panels in those underpasses. No doubt, the petitioner had filed a contempt petition in C.C.C. No.562/2021 (Civil) alleging that he was not permitted to maintain the underpasses despite the interim order granted by this Court. It is also not in dispute that in C.C.C. No.562/2021, Chief Engineer, Road Infrastructure – Special Division, BBMP, had filed an affidavit on 09.02.2022 stating that they had not disturbed the petitioner from carrying out the work in compliance with the order dated 08.02.2021 passed by this Court in W.P. No.2139/2021. If the petitioner was not allowed to maintain the 23 underpasses for the five years period as per the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020, that may constitute a breach of the contract and it is for the petitioner to work out his remedy before the Civil Court.
This Court definitely cannot sit in judgment over the question whether the petitioner
- 19 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
was permitted to work for the said five year period or not. Therefore, the petitioner cannot contend that the five year period under the supplementary agreement dated 07.05.2020 had to be reckoned from 09.02.2022, the date on which the affidavit was filed by the Chief Engineer, Road Infrastructure - Special Division of the respondent – BBMP and to extend the contractual period from 09.02.2022 till 08.02.2027. If the term of the petitioner has come to an end, he has no right to continue to maintain the underpasses that were the subject matter of the contract. Therefore, no reliefs can be granted to the petitioner in these writ petitions. However, it is seen that the petitioner was granted permission to maintain 23 underpasses in the City of Bengaluru. If the term of the contract under which the work was entrusted to the petitioner has come to an end, invariably the respondent authorities are bound to remove the advertisement panels that are put up by the petitioner and also maintain these underpasses. Since there is no immediate plan of inviting tenders in view of the constitution of the Greater Bengaluru Authority, it is appropriate that these underpasses are maintained and at the same time generate some revenue for the Greater Bengaluru
- 20 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
Authority. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that till the respondents take out steps for publication of a notification inviting bids from interested persons to maintain these underpasses, the petitioner should be continued to maintain these underpasses subject to the condition that the petitioner maintains these underpasses and also pay the stipulated advertisement fees as per the Bye-laws, 2025. 17.
It is needless to mention that if the petitioner fails to maintain these underpasses or fails to pay the advertisement fees as per the Bye-laws, 2025, the respondent authorities are at liberty to take suitable action to remove the advertisement panels installed by the petitioner and also take over 23 underpasses for maintenance by them. In the event the respondent authorities decide to maintain the underpasses on their own and not call for tenders, the respondents may take whatever measures that are required to remove the advertisement panels installed by the petitioner from the underpasses by communicating an order in that regard to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed off. - 21 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49276 WP No. 17712 of 2025 C/W WP No. 2139 of 2021
In view of disposal of these petitions, the pending interlocutory application-I.A No.3/2025 for direction in W.P. No.17712/2025 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20