RAJPUT ADVERTISING SERVICE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm carrying on business of advertising. THE firm is registered with North Eastern Railways for displaying hoardings after entering into contract at Kalyanpur surrounding areas since 1990. By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.2.2009, passed by Asstt. Commercial Manager, Izzat Nagar, Bareilly, U. P. and for renewing the contract for the year 2009-10 on an increase at 10% of the agreed rate for the previous year. Notices were accepted by Shri Govind Saran for all the respondents except respondent No. 5, a private firm. Shri Govind Saran has filed a counter-affidavit to which a rejoinder-affidavit is filed by the petitioner.

(2.) WE have heard Shri Anil Kumar Singh, the counsel for the petitioner and Shri Govind Saran for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.

(3.) THE petitioner received a letter from Asstt. Commercial Manager, Izzat Nagar dated 12.5.2008 reminding that the firm was allowed to display hoarding from 28.3.2008 to 27.3.2009. If the renewal fees is not deposited within a week at the end of the contract, his hoardings shall be removed and some one else will be allotted the space. THE petitioner lodged a protest on 22.10.2008 with the Chief Manager (Commercial), North Eastern Railway, Headquarter Gorakhpur, stating that he had submitted the tender with increased rates at 10% in pursuance of the advertisement dated 7.1.2008 for a period of three years and had deposited the amount calculated with increase of 10% on demand for a period initially for one year. THEreafter inspite of several letters he did not receive any response for renewal of contract for a period of three years upto 27.3.2011. THE petitioner requested that the amount of Rs. 1,00,978 deposited by him should be adjusted towards the amount for a period of one year of the three year contract. THE petitioner also protested to the oral orders of Shri D. D. Misra for deposit of Rs. 31,000 more for renewal fees. Once again the petitioner sent a letter on 31.1.2009 in response to the letter dated 22.1.2009 requesting that his renewal should be accepted upto 27.3.2010.