N.Pandey, J.

1. The questions involved in these cases are whether the District Magistrate, Patna, had jurisdiction to demolish the hoardings erected by the petitioners for their business activities pursuant to the agreement/leases with the District Board, Patna, as well as the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (In short "Transport Corporation")?

2. Before considering the rival contentions of the parties, it would be apt to have a brief survey of some of the facts. Petitioners in both the cases, at the relevant time, were carrying on business of advertising agency, Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8265 of 1992 was a lessee of the District Board for five years with effect from 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1994 whereas petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8264 of 1992 had taken a licence from the Transport Corporation for a period of 1.12.1991 to 30.11.1994 on payment of 5.5 lacs. According to the petitioners, in view of the provisions of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 (Part II) (In short "the Finance Act"), they had obtained permission of the Sales Tax Department for fixing such hoardings and were also paying sales tax in terms of Rule 3 of the Bihar Advertisement Rules, 1982 . Therefore, in case of any violation of the provisions of the Finance Act, the Commercial Taxes authorities were duly empowered under Sec. 77(a) of the Finance Act to take a suitable action. But, the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to interfere with their business and take steps for putting down such advertisement hoardings.

3. The petitioners have contended that on account of erection of the said hoardings, no hindrance had been caused to the smooth flow of traffic in any manner whatsoever. In fact, it has been contended that similar hoardings had been erected by the District Administration itself on the junction of Central Revenue building just by the side of the northern entrance of the gate of Patna High Court. Allegedly, the District Administration upon an order passed by the District Magistrate, Patna, demolished all the aforementioned hoardings purported to be in pursuance of a decision taken in a meeting held on 27.7.1991, minutes whereof is contained in Annexure-4. Therefore, in view of such illegal action on the part of the respondents, petitioners had suffered a huge loss.

4. The respondents, in their counter-affidavits, contended that the petitioners had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement. That apart, such hoardings were erected without prior approval of the district administration and the Municipal Corporation. Therefore, the district administration having found that such hoardings were illegally erected and were sufficient, to detract the attention of the motor vehicle drivers and pedestrians, took a decision to demolish such hoardings. It was further contended that ample opportunity was given to the petitioners by a notice published in the leading newspapers on 12/13th October, 1991 asking all the persons to remove such unauthorised hoardings. But the petitioners did not take any step. Hence, the district administration had no option but to demolish the same.

5. A counter-affidavit was also filed on behalf of the Transport Corporation (respondent No. 4) wherein it has supported the case of the petitioners. It has further been contended therein that similar hoardings have been put up in the premises of Hardings Park, Dak Bungalow Crossing, Revenue Building crossing and in the premises of Christ Church School next to bus stand but no action had been taken in relation to the said hoardings although the Commissioner of Division is the Chairman of the Trustee of Veer Kunwal Singh Park. It has been stated that all the hoardings had been dismantled without giving notice to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, ft has further been stated that no traffic hazard is caused on account of display of hoardings within the premises of Bankipur Bus Stand and hoardings are erected in bigger cities like Ahmedabad, Bombay and Delhi, and State Road Trans