A. P. BHANGALE, J.:- Heard submissions.

2. This petition is directed against contract dated 30.5.2005 entered into between the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (respondent no. 1) and Dattatraya Advertising Company (respondent no.3). The petitioner seeks quashing of the entire tender process relating to the contract for erection of Cantilever/ Gantry Road Sign Board System and also seeks mandamus to the respondents to remove all the gantries erected on the roads of the city pursuant to the said contract.

3. Briefly stated, it is the case of petitioner that in the year 2001 outdoor advertising policy was promulgated by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation for City of Nagpur after the decision to beneficially use the back-side of Cantilever for advertisement on 27.2.2004. Advertisement was published inviting tenders for grant of contract for advertisements on existing cantilever signboards by reserving any right to reject or accept any tender in the interest of the Corporation. Another tender notice dated 1.4.2004 was published offering advertising media right for cantilever; Gantries Road sign Boards on Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. On 4.8.2004 one more tender notice offering advertising rights on BOT Basis was published from Nagpur Municipal Corporation by which advertising media rights in Cantilever; Gantries Road-sign Boards were offered for period not more than fifteen years. In all these advertisements, the Corporation had reserved its right to accept or reject any tender in the interest of Municipal Corporation, Nagpur' During the course of correspondence and negotiations between respondent no. 1 and respondent no.3, written contract for construction and maintenance of Gantry was entered into on 30.5.2005 which was duly approved by the Standing Committed of the Municipal Corporation. Work Order was issued on 16.6.2005.

4. The petitioner alleged gross irregularities and corruption in the tender process, further alleging violation of outdoor advertising policy during the course of negotiations between Traffic Engineer on behalf of Municipal Corporation and the only bidder who had increased his offer by 5%. According to the petitioner, the price quoted was below the off-set price i.e. Rs.96.56 per square meter. Further, according to the petitioner, only those bids which are above off• set price i.e. premium can be considered. The petitioner alleged that on the basis of letter dated 2.3.2005 bidder revised bid to Rs.11/per square meter as premium charges along with fixed ground-rent and licence fee for illuminous display on municipal roads in Nagpur. The Traffic Engineer had approved the proposal and forwarded it to the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer who approved the rates and asked contractor to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Public Works Department and the National Highway before forwarding it to the Municipal Commissioner. The petitioner alleged that the Municipal Commissioner had simply forwarded the proposal to the Standing Committee for consideration. Standing Committee approved the proposal in its meeting dated 29.3.2005 and sent it to the Municipal Commissioner for implementation. Along with his no objection certificate for its implementation the second respondent approved the proposal. Draft agreement was prepared and put up for approval of the second respondent who granted approval by order dated 7.5.2005. In the result, agreement was executed between the respondents which was independent than the one embodied in tender documents. Thus, the petitioner alleges that there was marked departure from usual tender process before new contract was executed alleging that new contract was advantageous to the bidder. Work Order was issued on 16.6.2005 permitting installation of gantry signage system. On twelve locations which included location on PWD and National Highway roads without obtaining NOC from those authorities. The petitioner alleged that later permission for change of locations was also approved by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document