A.S. Advertising Co., Meerut and another vs Nagar Nigam, Meerut and another

M. Katju, J.—This writ petition was filed for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 the Nagar Nigam, Meerut not to settle the contract in respect of advertisement hoardings in favour of respondent No. 2 and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the hoarding sites.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

It has been alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioners are engaged in the business of advertising by fixing hoardings on the roadsides within the municipal limits of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut. In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is alleged that the Nagar Mahapalika (now known as Nagar Nigam) has framed rules for settling such contracts. True copy of the rules is annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition.

The aforesaid rules do not prescribe the manner in which the hoardings are to be let out. The petitioners have erected their own hoarding on the roadsides within the Meerut City and they are regularly depositing tax in accordance with the aforesaid rules vide Annexure-2 to the petition. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it is alleged that a tender notice was published in the daily newspaper ''Dainik Jagran'' on 16.6.2000 by which the Nagar Nigam has invited tenders in respect of the hoarding boards. A true copy of the tender notice is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Against this tender notice, Writ Petition No. 27680 of 2000 was filed in this Court which is still pending. However, as stated in paragraph 9 of the petition, no steps were taken by the Nagar Nigam in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 16.6.2000 and the notice stood withdrawn.

In paragraph 10 of the petition, it is alleged that now the Nagar Nigam has without inviting any application or holding any auction settled the contracts of all the hoarding sites within the Municipal limits of Meerut for a period of three years w.e.f. 1.10.2000. In paragraph 11 of the petition, it is alleged that the petitioners have already deposited the requisite tax with the Nagar Nigam authorities for the financial year 2000-2001 in respect of the hoardings which are being utilised by the petitioners for the purposes of advertisement. Hence it is alleged that the Nagar Nigam cannot settle that contract in favour of any third person.

It is alleged in paragraph 18 of the petition that the Nagar Nigam has issued notice in the daily newspaper ''Amar Ujala'' on 24.9.2000 for removing the hoardings, on roadsides/ private places by 28.9.2000, failing which they shall be forcibly removed vide Annexure-5 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the petition that the notice is in violation of this Court''s order as quoted in paragraph 17 of the petition.

A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2

In paragraph 10 of the same, it is alleged that publication of the auction was made in two daily newspaper on 13.7.2000 and 14.7.2000 vide Annexures-CA 1 and CA 2 to the affidavit. These advertisements state that the auction will take place on 22.7.2000 at 11 a.m. in the office of the Additional Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam. The respondent No. 2 participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder whose bid was Rs. 11,26,600 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 2,81,650. True copy of the receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure-CA 3 to the affidavit. The auction was confirmed and a letter was dispatched to that effect by the Tax Superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Meerut on 24.7.2000. Thereafter an agreement was executed vide Annexure-CA 4 to the affidavit. It is alleged that the petitioner had a full opportunity of participating in the auction but they did not do so. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit it is stated that petitioners have no right to continue and they cannot obstruct respondent No. 1 to make the auction.

A rejoinder-affidavit has been filed.

In paragraph 10 of the same, it is stated that Annexures-CA 1 and CA 2 are bogus documents and no reliance could be placed on the same, it is further alleged that no advertisement was published in the two newspapers Dainik Heera Times and Meerut Samachar on 13.7.2000 and 14.7.2000. It is further alleged that it is highly doubtful whether any auction took place on 22.7.2000. It is alleged that there was collusion between the Nagar Nigam and the respondent No. 2. The newspaper ''Dainik Heera Times'' is exclusively owned by Subhash Chandra Gupta who is father of Sri Parimal Chand the owner of respondent No. 2. Subash Chand Gupta is also the owner of ''Heera'' Advertising Company, which is shown to have participated in the auction.

In paragraph 11, it is stated that Meerut Samachar and Dainik ''Heera Times'' have absolutely no circulation within the Municipal limit of Meerut. In fact previously the Nagar Nigam had issued advertisement on 16.6.2000 in a reputed newspaper ''Dainik Jagran'' which had wide circulation but subsequently the proceedings was given up by the Nagar Nigam. The subsequent advertisement of 13.7.2000 and 14.7.2000 was made in two unknown newspapers of Meerut and this shows collusion between the Nagar Nigam and the respondent No. 2.

It is settled law that auction by public authorities is not largesse vide Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, . Hence contracts by such bodies can only be given after wide publication in well known newspapers so that all eligible persons can participate in the auction/tender. It is well known that there are reputed newspapers like ''Dainik Jagran'', ''Amar Ujala'', etc in Hindi and Times of India'', ''Hindustan Times'', etc. in English which have wide circulation in Meerut but it is very surprising that the impugned auction notice was not made in any of these well known newspapers but in the newspapers called ''Meerut Samachar'' and ''Dainik Heera Times'' which are practically unknown. We are not satisfied that ''Meerut Samachar'' and ''Dainik Heera Times'' are well known newspapers having wide circulation. In fact, it is strange that whereas the notice dated 16.6.2000 was published in the well known newspaper Dainik Jagran, but thereafter the contract was not finalised and instead the Nagar Nigam strangely again advertised the auction but this time practically in unknown newspapers.

As observed by this Court in S. K. Dixit v. D.I.O.S. 1995 (2) ALR 601. "It is well known that in the State of Uttar Pradesh several fraudulent newspapers have sprung up in almost every city and these newspapers have very little circulation and they publish only a few copies with the intention of creating an impression that the vacancy or auction was advertised (in case there is any challenge to the same). Very often it happens that even these few newspaper copies carrying the so called advertisement are either not distributed or sold, or the relevant page is removed before distribution or sale. This nefarious practice has become so widespread that now the time has come when it must be stopped. There are well known Hindi newspapers e.g., Dainik Jagran, Amar Ujala, Swatantra Bharat, Nav Bharat Times, etc., having wide circulation in the State of Uttar Pradesh and it is surprising that in almost all the cases which have come up before this Court the vacancies are not advertised in these well known newspapers which have wide circulation but they are advertised in some fraudulent or unknown newspaper having little or no circulation."

In a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Lalluji and Sons and others v. State of U. P. and others, Writ Petition No. 41992 of 1993, decided on 16.12.1993, it has been held that publication must be in a well known newspaper having wide circulation, and the advertisement in a newspaper having little or no circulation cannot be of any avail to the petitioner.

We are fully in agreement with the said Division Bench decision.

In our opinion, advertisement in an unknown newspaper stands on the same footing as no advertisement at all since, the purpose of the advertisement is that there should be wide publicity otherwise Article 14 of the Constitution will be violated.

In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. The impugned auction as well as the contract in pursuance thereof are quashed. However, we are not going into the other points raised in this petition, as that is not necessary for the purpose of this case. The petition is allowed. No orders as to costs.