BHATIA ART SERVICE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition to quash Annexure P-8, issued by the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') requiring the petitioner to remove the hoardings put up by them within the limits of the Corporation and also to quash the proceedings of auction held by the Corporation for display of hoardings within the Municipal limits.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the real controversy it will be useful to give a brief resume of the facts of the case. Petitioners as well as respondent No. 4 are engaged in the business of advertising which includes putting up of hoardings on the basis of licence granted by the competent authorities. The petitioners have been putting up advertisement hoardings in Faridabad town on the basis of permission/licence granted to them by the authorities of erstwhile Faridabad Complex under the provisions of Faridabad Complex (Regulation and Development) Act, 1971 (to be referred hereinafter as Rs.1971 Act'). Even after coming into force of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 (to be referred hereinafter Rs.1994 Act'), the Municipal Corporation, Faridabad gave permission to petitioner No. 1, to display 65 hoardings for a period of one year commencing from 1.10.1994. In the year 1995 petitioners applied for permission to put up hoardings for advertisements and vide Annexures P-5 and P-6 the Joint Commissioner granted such permission for display of hoardings during 1995-96.

(3.) FIRST contention urged by Shri M.L. Sarin is that the auction of hoardings is contrary to the provisions of Rs.1994 Act' read with the provisions of Rs.1971 Act'. Learned counsel referred to the provisions of Section 46 of Rs.1971 Act'. Advertisement Control Order, 1973 and Sections 121 to 125, 418 and 421 of Rs.1994 Act' and argued that in terms of statutory provisions the licences for hoardings are to be given on payment of fee fixed by the Chief Administrator of the erstwhile Faridabad Complex because in terms of Section 121 of Rs.1994 Act', the Government has not specified the amount of fee to be charged for advertisement hoardings. Learned counsel argued that even though Rs.1971 Act' stands repealed, the rates of fee prescribed by the Chief Administrator for hoardings will continue to remain in force and there can be no justification to deprive the petitioners of their right to carry on business on the basis of a resolution passed by the respondent-Corporation which does not have any sanction of law. Learned counsel argued that the petitioners have a fundamental right to carry on trade and business in accordance with the provisions of the statute and they cannot be deprived of their right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India by employing the mechanism of auction of advertisement hoardings. Second contention urged by Shri Sarin is that the impugned auction has been held by the respondent-Corporation with the sole object to help respondent No. 4 who was earlier shown similar favour by the Faridabad Complex Administration and this Court had nullified the action of the authorities in C.W.P. No. 3802/98, The Faridabad Advertisers Association (Regd.) v. The Faridabad Complex Administration and another, decided on April 11, 1989. Last contention urged by Shri Sarin is that only a few parties had come forward to give their bid because of lack of publicity of the auction notice and, therefore, the auction proceedings should be declared illegal and a direction be given to the respondent-Corporation to re-advertise the auction notice so that a larger amount of revenue may be earned by the Corporation.