SELVEL ADVERTISING PVT LTD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The six petitioners, who are either limited company, registered Society or Firm engaged in the business of advertising, were associated with the beautification of Patna, and were allpwed to put hoardings or boards containing advertisement by the side of some specified roads of Patna, in lieu of making provision for lighting up the roads, and admittedly this arrangement had continued for five years' ending in the month of June, 1994. This had been done after considering their proposals by the Beautification Committee and its Sub- committee, which had been set up and the terms and conditions of the arrangement had been incorpprated in the communication bearing Memo No.9545 dated 30th September, 1988 issued by the Collector, Patna, (a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In that connexion 9 resolution had also been passed on 6.12.1988 in a meeting which was held under the Chairmanship of the Collector, Patna, (who has been referred also as the District Magistrate-Respondent No.4) and been attended by the officers of all concerned authorities namely, the Chief Engineer of Patna Municipal Corporation, Dy.Collector, Incharge Urban Development, Chief Engineer, Patna Regional Development Authority, Superintending Engineer, Patna Electric Supply Company, Circle Officer, Patna Sadar, and some of the representatives of the petitioners, and by that resolution ( a copy of which is Annexure 1), also a decision was taken to associate the petitioners with the work of putting lights on various poles on different roads/streets lying in the area of Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioners under the arrangement got fixed up lamps of specified type and in lieu of the lighting were permitted to put kiosks or boards containing advertisement commonly called boardings. There were several details in this broad arrangements indicating the number and nature of lights to be put up on various roads/streets and the rent/tax which was to be paid or each of the hoardings and the places at which and size of which the hoardings could be fixed up and some details are mentioned in the writ-petition also. It does not seem necessary to mention the details for consideration of the contentions raised during the hearing of the writ-petition. Broadly the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are entitled to continue the arrangement (which according to the petitioners was a scheme) with some modification and prayer has been made in the writ-petition for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction:

(2.) According to the case of the petitioners, the State Government was anxious for beautification of Patna town. The Patna Municipal Corporation, which has the legal duty of providing civil amenities including providing street lights, had failed to do so on account of lack of resources and so it was decided to associate private agencies, company, individuals for providing different types of facilities to the residents of the town; and the petitioners had made a proposal for providing street lights of different varieties. After examining the proposal which had been examined thoroughly by the Beautification Sub-Committee, which submitted a report to the Principal Committee headed by the District Magistrate, Patna, and with the association of the concerned authorities including the Patna Municipal Corporation and Patna Regional Development Authority, the arrangement had been done under which the petitioners had made considerable investment in providing street lights, and they, in lieu thereof, had been permitted to put hoardings and kiosks at places which had been specified by the authorities. The petitioners also provided road dividers and did some work at places of carparking etc. According to them, their performance in the matter was satisfactory and they had provided service as contemplated by the decisions contained in Annexures 1 and 2 . After expiry of the period of the five years, the petitioners again made representation before the District Magistrate for renewal of their contract for further period of five years and the District Magistrate made a reference to the Secretary, Department of Urban Development (Respondent No.2) seeking approval and necessary direction of the State Government about continuance of the Scheme. While making reference to the State Government by the letter dated 14.6.1994 ( a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition), the District Magistrate had noticed that the performance of the petitioners was satisfactory. There was, however, no immediate response to the letter (Annexure 4) by the State Government and so the District Magistrate issued an order vide Memo No.410, dated 19.7.1994 (a copy of which is Annexure 5 to the writ petition) requiring them to ensure removal of hoardings. After issue of Annexure 5, the State Government, according to the petitioners, in response to the communication (Annexure 4) of the District Magistrate approved the previous arrangements by letter No.2140 dated 6th September, 1994 with certain conditions. After issue of the letter of the State Government (Annexure 6) which contained a direction that the arrangement should be continued but the petitioners should also be given some additional task, there was, according to the petitioners, renewal of the contract for a further period of five years by issue of Memo No. 58, dated 29.11.1994 by the District Magistrate (a copy of which is Annexure 7). The petitioners after issue of Annexure 7 started maintaining street lights which had been respectively ear-marked to them from before. Their stand is that even when there performance was satisfactory and they had started maintaining the lights after issue of the communication (Annexure 7) on the basis of the direction of the State Government, the petitioners, all of a sudden, received from the Deputy Development Commissioner (Respondent No.5) letter No.207, dated 14.9.1995 (a copy of which is Annexure 8) communicating to them, inter alia, that the electricity work allotted to them were cancelled.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the street lights provided by them were also taken over by the Patna Electric Supply Undertaking, although under the arrangement, they were entitled to remove the lighting equipments provided by them after expiry of the period of five years, during which they had been allowed to provide street lights and fixed up, in lieu thereof, kiosks/hoardings. The possession of the street lights had been taken over by the respondent (Patna Electric Supply Undertaking) even though they were fully functional.