XL VISIONS Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed against the impugned orders dated 211-2004 and 20-12-2004 in W. P. No. 6646 of 2004 and Review application No. 83 respectively passed by the learned single Judge.

(2.) THE appellant/writ petitioner challenged the licence granted by the first respondent in favour of the second respondent to display its advertisements in the central median grills on the National Highways no. 67 between kilometers 343 and 344 at different points, railway barricade wall and in the circular park. Admittedly, the appellant was given licence to display its advertisement hoarding on the central median grills on the National Highways No. 67 between 343 km and 344 km. The said licence was valid for one year and could be renewed every year by paying the necessary charges. No doubt, in the letter of the Divisional Engineer (N. H.) Coimbatore dated 8-7-2002, a copy of which is annexed at page No. 19 of the typed set filed in the writ appeals, it is mentioned that the appellant has to renew the licence every year by paying the necessary fees but no specific time limit has been fixed in the said letter for making the application for renewal of the licence. The appellant, after the expiry of the one year period did not apply to renew the licence and, therefore, the licence was granted to the second respondent, which was challenged by the appellant before the learned single Judge. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition as well as the review application filed by the appellant.

(3.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. It is well settled that where a statute or a rule is silent about the time limit for doing an act or complying with certain formality, then such act or formality should be done or complied with within a reasonable time - vide AIR 1995 SC 943 (R. P. F. Commissioner v. M/s. K. T. Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. and (2000) 1 JT SC 317 : (AIR 2000 SC 761) (Corporation Bank v. Navin J. Shah ). In the present case, the appellant made his application for renewal of his licence on 15-3-2004 i. e. more than eight months after the expiry of the licence period on 7-7-2003. We would very well understand if the appellant had applied for renewal within a month or so after the expiry of the licence period but the renewal application was made more than eight months after the expiry of the licence. This, in our opinion, cannot be considered to be within a reasonable time. That apart, after the expiry of the licence period, the licence was granted in favour of the second respondent on 25-2-2004. The learned single Judge was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition and the review application. We see no ground to interfere with the impugned orders.