The main legal point established in the judgment is that the installation of CCTV cameras and unipole hoardings for advertisement without permission from the Municipal Corporation was in breach of Section 145 of the Municipal Act.

JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

At the instance of the Superintendent of Police, Saran vide letter dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure-1), the petitioner is said to have installed CCTV cameras at 24 places at Chhapra with the following conditions:-

(i) All expenditures pertaining to the installation of CCTV Cameras shall be borne by the petitioner,

(ii) Electricity bill shall be paid by the petitioner,

(iii) Essential equipment in the control room shall be arranged by the petitioner,

(iv) The expenditure incurred on the installation of the CCTV Cameras will be adjusted with the display advertisements on CCTV Unipoles,

(v) Necessary permission for displaying the advertisements shall be obtained in accordance with law from the concerned Department, namely, Municipal Corporation/R.C.D.; an agreement shall have to be executed conforming to the aforesaid conditions,

(vi) Technical assistance shall be provided by the petitioner, and training shall be imparted by it to the employees deputed by the office of the Superintendent of Police.

2. The petitioner claims to be a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged in the business of providing CCTV cameras to the local administration for ensuring the maintenance of law and order.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that, acting upon the said communication dated 23.06.2017, the petitioner has been displaying advertisements through the installed CCTV Unipoles since October 2017. The details have been given in the writ petition in relation to the expenditure incurred by it on the installation of CCTV cameras.

4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Chhapra Municipal Corporation, whereby private respondent No. 8 has been awarded work of installation of hoarding advertisements at 20 places, including the places where the petitioner is said to have installed CCTVs and put unipole hoardings in terms of the permission granted by the Superintendent of Police, Chhapra. In the said factual background, the petitioner is seeking a direction from this Court to the Municipal Corporation to allow it to continue with the work in terms of the said letter dated 23.06.2017 (Annexure-7) issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Police, Chhapra. It is noteworthy at this juncture that the settlement in favour of respondent No. 8 for the installation of advertisement hoardings has been made on the basis of an open competitive public auction held on 20.06.2020. It is also significant to note that, admittedly, the petitioner had never been granted any permission by the Chhapra Municipal Corporation to install unipole hoardings.

5. The petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that it was not aware as to how much amount it was required to deposit with the Chhapra Municipal Corporation against advertisement tax and despite requests having been made by the petitioner, the Corporation failed to determine the said amount. The petitioner is also relying on subsequent permissions accorded by the Superintendent of Police to install CCTVs at 24 places.

6. By an order dated 06.06.2020 issued to the petitioner under the signature of the Municipal Commissioner of Chhapra Nagar Nigam, the petitioner was asked to produce the documents in relation to the installation of the unipole hoardings. Responding to the said notice, the petitioner is said to have informed the Corporation that there were 24 CCTV cameras working at 17 places and that it had been requesting the Corporation to determine the advertisement tax for payment to the Corporation but for want of response, the same could not be deposited.

7. The fact remains that the Corporation subsequently invited bids for the installation of CCTV cameras with unipole hoardings at such places where the petitioner had installed its CCTV Cameras. The said bidding process was objected to by the petitioner. Finally, the work of displaying advertisements at the 20 places has been allotted to the private respondent No. 8 by an order dated 15.07.2020, on completi