The Telangana High Court’s order in this writ petition establishes a critical safeguard for commercial entities against arbitrary state action. By mandating procedural fairness before removal of advertisement structures, the Court reinforces that administrative power cannot be exercised without affording a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M/s Uni Ads Limited, operates outdoor advertising hoardings, flexes, and structures across multiple municipal jurisdictions in Telangana. Respondent No. 4, the Commissioner of Shamshabad Municipality, issued a show cause notice on 26 August 2025, proposing removal of these structures on grounds of alleged violation of Circular No. 12/551/2020-K2 dated 4 July 2020. The petitioner contended that this circular had been placed in abeyance by a subsequent circular dated 18 March 2024, pending formulation of a new advertisement policy.
Procedural History
- The petitioner received a show cause notice without prior notice or opportunity to explain.
- No formal inquiry or hearing was conducted before the proposed removal.
- The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the notice as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
- The petitioner also sought interim relief under Section 151 CPC to restrain removal pending disposal.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a declaration that the show cause notice was illegal and a direction to the respondents to refrain from removing any advertisement structures until a new policy was notified and due process was followed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether administrative authorities may issue show cause notices proposing removal of lawfully erected advertisements without providing an opportunity of hearing, and whether such action violates Article 14 and the principles of natural justice.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued in violation of audi alteram partem, as no hearing was granted before proposing coercive action. Reliance was placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to assert that even statutory powers must be exercised fairly. The petitioner further contended that the circular relied upon had been suspended, rendering the notice legally baseless. It was submitted that the petitioner had paid all prescribed fees and was awaiting renewal under a pending policy.
For the Respondent
The respondents, through their standing counsel, did not dispute the absence of a hearing. Instead, they conceded that no coercive steps would be taken pending submission of a representation by the petitioner. They clarified that flexes were not part of any contractual agreement and could be removed under municipal bylaws, but agreed to follow due process.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the show cause notice and its potential consequences. It recognized that even if the advertisement structures were not formally licensed, their removal constituted a significant deprivation of property and livelihood. The Court emphasized that natural justice is not a technicality but a constitutional imperative.
"The right to be heard is not a privilege but a fundamental requirement whenever an administrative decision affects rights or interests."
The Court noted that the respondents had already acknowledged the suspension of the circular and the existence of a pending policy framework. In such a context, unilateral action without hearing would amount to arbitrariness under Article 14. The Court further held that the petitioner’s payment of fees and reliance on government assurances created a legitimate expectation that must be protected.
The Court rejected the notion that administrative convenience could override procedural fairness. It held that the absence of a formal license does not negate the right to a hearing before enforcement action. The Court also clarified that while the authorities retain the power to remove structures not covered by contract, such power must be exercised only after compliance with audi alteram partem.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that due process is non-negotiable even in administrative enforcement. It directed the respondents to afford the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before taking any coercive action and barred removal of structures pending such hearing.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Opportunity of Hearing Is Mandatory Before Removal
- Practitioners must now insist on a hearing before any show cause notice for removal of advertisements, hoardings, or flexes is enforced.
- Authorities cannot rely on suspended or non-notified circulars to justify coercive action.
- Payment of fees and reliance on government assurances create a legitimate expectation that courts will protect.
Administrative Convenience Cannot Override Natural Justice
- Even if structures are technically non-compliant, removal without hearing is voidable.
- Courts will intervene where authorities act on expired or suspended directives.
- The burden shifts to the state to prove that a hearing was either waived or unnecessary.
Flexes Are Not Automatically Exempt, But Require Due Process
- The Court clarified that flexes may be removed if not part of a contract, but only after following due process.
- Practitioners should document all fee payments and communications with authorities to establish good faith.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 remain a viable remedy where procedural rights are ignored.
