HIGHWAY ADVERTISING, CHANDIGARH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner questions the legality and validity of the decision taken by the officials of the Northern Railway, respondents No. 2 to 5 herein, to award limited advertising rights in three parks, in the circulating area of Chandigarh Railway Station, in favour of respondent No. 6.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the background facts are as follows : The petitioner, a sole proprietary concern, is engaged in the business of outdoor advertising in and around the city of Chandigarh. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt., respondent No. 3 herein, had awarded to the petitioner the work of development and maintenance of three parks of Chandigarh Railway Station and in consideration therefore, it was entitled to display 14 Glow Sign Boards of different sizes for a period of 3 years. On the expiry of the said period, respondent No. 3 issued a fresh notice inviting tenders (for short, 'the NIT') from registered advertising agencies for awarding limited advertising contract for the said three parks for a period of 3 years. The tenders were to be opened on 29.10.2004. Pursuant to the said NIT, the petitioner submitted its tender. Since the tenders could not be opened on the due date, on the request of respondent No. 3, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 extended the validity of their tenders. The petitioner continued with the old work awarded to him on payment of monthly rental charges. Since the tender was not being finalised, apprehending something fishy, on 29.3.2005, the petitioner made a representation to respondent No. 3, inter-alia, praying for early finalisation of the tender and issue of allotment letter in his favour. But there was no response. It is averred that it has now come to the notice of the petitioner that the subject-tender has been awarded in favour of respondent No. 6, despite the fact that the rate quoted by the said respondent was much lower than the rate quoted by the petitioner. It is, thus, pleaded that the said action on the part of the official respondents is illegal and arbitrary and, therefore, deserves to be quashed.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.