Allahabad High Court
Tulsi Prabha Foundation vs State Of U P And 2 Others on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta, Dinesh Pathak
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12381 of 2022 Petitioner :- Tulsi Prabha Foundation Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulrez Khan,Javed Husain Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharmendra Singh Chauhan Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.
The instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of e-tender notice dated 16.4.2022, published in newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 18.4.2022, inviting bids for advertising rights over various structures, like banners, canopies, advertising vehicles, dividers, tree guards, flower pot poster, balloons, walls, etc., within the limits of Nagar Nigam.
The contention of the petitioner is that the impugned e-tender notice in so far as it relates to advertisement on tree guards erected over dividers/flower pot posters, is wholly illegal, inasmuch as, the petitioner is already having such right in its favour, in pursuance of agreement dated 7.10.2020, between it and Nagar Nigam, Aligarh. The said agreement is valid for initial period of two years, extendable for a further period of two years.
Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, points out that the agreement with the petitioner is confined to certain areas, i.e. between Etah Chungi to Charra Adda Pul and Sootmil Chauraha to Tehsil Chauraha. He submitted that he has instruction to state that the said area will be excluded from the area which is now sought to be settled in pursuance of impugned e-tender notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that the agreement between the petitioner and Nagar Nigam was in respect of the above noted areas. The same is also clear from the recitals contained in para 2 and 4 of the agreement between the petitioner and Nagar Nigam dated 7.10.2020. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner apprehends that the respondents will interfere in the work of the petitioner and in his rights under the agreement, even in respect of the above two areas.
Having regard to the submissions made, as well as the statement made by Sri Dharmendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3, we dispose of the writ petition by providing that the impugned advertisement shall be restricted to areas other than those covered by the agreement with the petitioner dated 7.10.2020 in respect of tree guards over dividers/flower pot posters. For the remaining areas and other structures, the respondents are free to proceed in pursuance of the impugned e-tender notice. The petitioner shall also be free to participate and in which event, the bid of the petitioner shall also be considered in accordance with law.
(Dinesh Pathak, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 4.5.2022 Jaideep/-