M/S. COVER AGE, ANAND BHAWAN LANE, UMAR COLONY, ROURKELA, DISTRICT : SUNDARGARH, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MD. KHURSEED ANWAR, S/O. LATE MD. SULAIMAN Vs. ROURKELA MUNICIPALITY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.03.2011 (Annexure -1) issued by the Executive Officer, Rourkela Municipality by which the Executive Officer ordered to cancel the licence granted to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to remove all advertisements and advertising materials within seven days from the date of service of the order, failing which appropriate steps would be taken in accordance with law for removal and confiscation of all those materials. The petitioner has further prayed to declare the action of opposite parties as illegal and arbitrary in cancelling the agreement under Annexure -3 and order dated 15.07.2008 under Annexure -2.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the petitioner's case in a nutshell is as follows:

(3.) WHEN the matter stood thus, opposite parties by an order dated 17.12.2009 cancelled the previous order dated 15.07.2008 without adhering to the principles of natural justice. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.19836 of 2009. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 15.11.2010 holding that without compliance of the principles of natural justice cancellation of the entire licence to display advertisements by installing hoardings is bad in law and accordingly, this Court quashed the aforesaid order of cancellation. While disposing of the said writ petition, this Court also gave liberty to the opposite parties to notify the petitioner -firm that if any of the hoardings or Kiosks is obstructing the traffic or destroying the beauty of the landscape or coming in the way of widening of the road. After such things were notified, the petitioner would be at liberty to file its objection. If the objection is filed, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed. In spite of such specific direction of this Court, opposite parties in hot haste have cancelled the licence of the petitioner -firm illegally in respect of the hoardings/kiosks that have been erected in stead of intimating the petitioner firm about those hoardings/Kiosks which cause obstruction and prevent the developmental work. After the order was passed, a notice dated 03.12.2010 (Annexure -5) was served on the petitioner firm, wherein the opposite parties had intimated the petitioner -firm that display of the advertisement has caused traffic hazards, destruction of scenic beauty, road congestion, apprehension of accident and is creating hindrance in widening of road and as such in the interest of the public, the Municipality proposes to cancel the said agreement and accordingly, directed the petitioner -firm to file its objection, if any.