AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 171 wordsM. Katju and Prakash Krishna, JJ.—Admittedly, the petitioner was granted theka for 1.4.2002 to 31.3.2003. The period of this theka is about to expire and we have held in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7154 of 2003, POLE Ads Advertising v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad and Ors., decided today that the period of contract cannot be renewed or extended as that would violate Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. For the reasons given in that decision, this petition is dismissed.
However, if the petitioner was not allowed to operate the theka for any period or any part thereof, he shall be refunded the theka amount, or the proportionate amount of the theka as the case may be. For this purpose, the petitioner should apply to the respondent No. 5 and if he does so, and the respondent No. 5 finds that his claim is correct, the amount shall be refunded to the petitioner preferably within a month of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law.