# A.S. Advertising Co., Meerut and another v. Nagar Nigam, Meerut and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 158
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/a-s-advertising-co-meerut-and-another-v-nagar-nigam-meerut-and-another-39690
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
158
therefore, no relief could be granted to the
petitioner.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not
find any merit in these petitions.

9. Both the writ petitions fail and are
hereby dismissed.

10. Parties shall bear their own
costs.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 'HFHPEHU
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 'HFHPEHU
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 2 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

$6 $GYHUWLVLQJ &RPSDQ\ 5DLOZD\ 5RDG
0HHUXW DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
1DJDU 1LJDP 0HHUXW DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 6KDVKL 1DQGDQ
6UL 56 0LVKUD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL .5 6LURKL
6UL 5% 6LQJKDO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

$XFWLRQ7HQGHU
IRU
DGYHUWLVHPHQW
E\
IL[LQJ
KRDUGLQJV
E\
URDGVLGHV
ZLWKLQ
OLPLWV RI 1DJDU 1LJDP SXEOLVKHG LQ 1HZV
SDSHUV KDYLQJ OLWWOH RU QR FLUFXODWLRQ
KHOG YLRODWLYH RI $UWLFOH
+HOG 3DUD
,Q
RXU
RSLQLRQ
DGYHUWLVHPHQW
LQ
DQ
XQNQRZQ QHZVSDSHU VWDQGV RQ WKH VDPH
IRRWLQJ DV QR DGYHUWLVHPHQW DW DOO VLQFH
WKH SXUSRVH RI WKH DGYHUWLVHPHQW LV WKDW
WKHUH VKRXOG EH ZLGH SXEOLFLW\ RWKHUZLVH
$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ ZLOO EH
YLRODWHG
&DVH UHIHUUHG
 $/5
:3
12
RI

GHFLGHG
RQ

/DOORMHH 6RQV 9V 6WDWH RI 83

By the Court

1. 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
petitioners over the hoardings sites.

2. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

3. 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.

4. The aforesaid rules do not
prescribe the manner in which the
hoardings are to be let out. The petitioners
have erected their own hoardings 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
1All] A.S. Advertising Co., Meerut and another V. Nagar Nigam, Meerut and another 159
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.

5. 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 20002001 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.

6. 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 road sites/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.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
de the respondent no.2.

8. 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 annexure
CA-1 and CA-2 to the affidavit. These
advertisement state that the auction will
take place on 22.7.2000 at 11.00 a.m. in
the office of the Addl. Mukhya Nagar
Adhikari, Nagar Nigam. The respondent
no. 2 participated in the auction and he
was the highest bidder whose bid was
11,26,600/= and he deposited a sum of
Rs.2,81,650/=. True copy of the receipts
of the same is annexed as Annexure/=CA3 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 No. CA-4 to the affidavit.
It is alleged that the petitioner had a full
opportunity of participating in the auction
by 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.

9. A rejoinder affidavit has been
filed.

10. In paragraph 10 of the same it is
stated that Annexure-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
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
160
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.

11. In paragraph 11 it is stated that
Meerut Samachar and Dainik Heera
Times have absolutely no circulation
within the Municipal limits of Meerut. In
fact previously the Nagar Nigam had
issued advertisement on 16.6.2000 in
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 newspaper of Meerut and this
shows collusion between the Nagar
Nigam and the respondent no.2.

12. It settled law that auction by
public authorities is not largest vide
Ramanna Shetty Vs. International Airport
Authority AIR 1979 SC 1628. 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.

13. As observed by this Court in
S.K. Dixit Vs. DIOS 1995 ALR (2) 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
not the time has come when it must be
stopped. There are well known Hindi
newspapers e.g. Dainik Jagran, Aaj, 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."

14. In a Division Bench decision of
this Court in the case of M/s Lalluji &
Sons and others Vs State of U.P. Writ
petition no. 41992 of 1993 and others
decided on 16.12.93 it has been held that
publication must be in a well known
newspaper having wide circulation, and
the advertisement in a newspaper having
1All] Jauwad Ali V. State of U.P. and another 161
 little or no circulation cannot be of
any avail to the petitioner.

15. We are fully in agreement with
the said Division Bench Decision.

16. In our opinion advertisement in
an unknown newspaper stands on the
same footing as no advertisement at all
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 there of 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.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

-DXZDG $OL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6\HG :DMLG $OL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH 1DWXUDO
-XVWLFH &DVWH &HUWLILFDWH JUDQWHG DIWHU
WKH
$PHQGPHQW&DQFHOODWLRQ
RI
LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
LOOHJDO
+HOG3DUD
)ROORZLQJ WKLV VHWWOHG SULQFLSOH WKDW VLQFH
E\ LVVXDQFH RI &DVWH &HUWLILFDWH FHUWDLQ
ULJKWV KDYH DFFUXHG WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU
ZKLFK FDQQRW EH WDNHQ DZD\ ZLWKRXW
JLYLQJ KLP DQ\ RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ
DQG
ZKLFK
YLRODWHV
WKH
SULQFLSOHV
RI
QDWXUDO MXVWLFH ZH DUH RI WKH YLHZ WKDW LW
ZDV
QRW
SURSHU
RQ
WKH
SDUW
RI
WKH
DXWKRULWLHV
WR
FDQFHO
WKH
&DVWH
&HUWLILFDWH
ZLWKRXW
LVVXLQJ
DQ\
VKRZ
FDXVH QRWLFH DQG ZLWKRXW JLYLQJ KLP DQ\
RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ DQG WKH VDLG RUGHU
RI
WKH
FDQFHOODWLRQ
RI
WKH
&DVWH
&HUWLILFDWH VXIIHUV IURP YLRODWLRQ RI WKH
SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
$LU 6&

By the Court

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the
impugned order dated 7th August, 2000,
whereby the Caste Certificate granted to
the writ petitioner on 21st June, 2000 by
the Tehsildar, Tehsil Sahjanwan, District
Gorakhpur (respondent no. 2) has been
cancelled. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged the
legality and validity of the impugned
order dated 7th August,2000 cancelling the
Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner
on 21st June, 2000.

3. It is the contention of the
petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the
'Sheikh' caste and the said caste was
recognized
as
Backward
Caste
by
respondent no. 1 the State of Uttar
Pradesh.
The
petitioner
applied
for
issuance of the Caste Certificate before