SUMIT AGRAWAL Vs. RAIPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.P. Sharma, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned Counsel for the Respondent-corporation.

(2.) By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the notice inviting tender dated 13-3-2003 (Annexure P/l) issued by the Respondent-corporation and further, a direction to the Respondent-corporation to renew the agreement for further period as per the prevailing practice and in accordance with the bye-laws.

(3.) The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the application dated 12-1-1996, the Petitioner was granted permission on 27-2-1996 (Annexure P/3) to install hoardings on payment of annual rent. The same was followed for a period from 1-3-1996 to 13-3-1997. It was clearly stated that the hoarding so installed may be removed within 24 hours on notice to the Petitioner. There was no clause for renewal of the period. Thereafter, further agreement was executed on 14-10-1999 (Annexure P/4) granting permission from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2002. The Petitioner was further permitted to continue with the business of installation of hoardings upto 19-3-2003. On completion of the period, the Petitioner including other persons who were granted permission to install hoardings were informed by public notice that they should remove the hoardings before 30-3-2003, thereafter, the same would be confiscated by the Corporation. By public notice dated 13-3-2003, on the same date, a notice inviting tender was issued from all eligible persons to make application with a security deposit of Rs. 20,000.00 for agreement of permission to install hoardings for advertisement and further, a notice to remove the hoardings permitted upto 30-3-2003. Thus, this petition.