Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Chittatosh Mookerjee, Bankim Chandra Ray, JJ.
Kanchanoor Bhaskar Shetty – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal & Ors. – Respondents
Appeal from Original No. 357 of 1978
Decided On: July 24, 1978
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - DISCRIMINATION - PUBLIC CONTRACT - EXECUTIVE POWER - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - STATUTORY DUTY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Kanchanoor Bhaskar Shetty, applied to the Public Works Department (PWD) for a license to install kiosks on street lamp posts in the Maidan area and VIP Road in Kolkata. The PWD initially agreed to grant the license subject to certain conditions, but later awarded the license to the respondent, Adwave, after considering a higher offer. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the PWD's decision, arguing that it was arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice, and discriminatory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the PWD's decision to grant the license to the respondent was not discriminatory, as the petitioner was not debarred from consideration at the threshold and both offers were duly considered. The court also held that the principles of natural justice were not applicable in this case, as the petitioner's right to have his offer considered was not a fundamental or civil right. Additionally, the court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked against the PWD, as there was no concluded contract between the parties.
Issues: 1. Whether the PWD's decision to grant the license to the respondent was discriminatory? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were applicable in this case? 3. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel could be invoked against the PWD?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the PWD's decision was not discriminatory because the petitioner was not debarred from consideration at the threshold and both offers were duly considered. The court relied on the decision in Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of West Bengal, where it was held that there cannot be any discrimination at the threshold or at the time of entry into the field of consideration of persons with whom contracts will be made by the Government. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice were not applicable in this case because the petitioner's right to have his offer considered was not a fundamental or civil right. The court relied on the decisions in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binopani Dei and others and A. K. Kraipak and others v. Union of India and others, where it was held that the principles of natural justice apply only to decisions that affect fundamental or civil rights. 3. The court held that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked against the PWD because there was no concluded contract between the parties. The court relied on the decision in Vikhraj Jaipuria v. Union of India, where it was held that a contract entered into with the Government by a party in order to be valid must be made in the manner prescribed under Article 299 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court.
Ray, J.: This appeal by the petitioner arises out of the judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No. 5923 (W) of 1977 filed on February 9, 1978 by T. K. Basu, J. discharging the Rule.
2. The petitioner Kanchanoor Bhaskar Shetty carrying on business of advertising under the name and style of Classic Advertising submitted au application on January 19, 1977 before the Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal for the grant of licence for fixing kiosks on street lamp post owned by the Public Works Department in the Maidan area and on the V.I.P. Road up to the Calcutta Air Port offering to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/- annualy as rent. The petitioner thereafter submitted a sketch plan showing the types of kiosks to be mounted to the street lamp posts as directed by the Assistant Chief Engineer, P.W.D. on 2nd May, 1977. A letter was issued under the signature of the Deputy Secretary II, Public Works Department (Works Branch), Government of West Bengal to the petitioner intimating him the decision of the Government about the terms and conditions of the permission to display advertisement on boards. The terms and conditions are set out hereunder :-
"(1) Tenure of the permission will be five years for the present.
(ii) Display on boards will be allowed on all lamp posts by the side of Maidan roads/VIP Road.
(iii) Rental @ Rs. 12,000/- per annum is acceptable by the PWD with the proviso that three months rental against Rs. 12,000/- per annum is required to be paid in advance by the Coy.
(iv) The Coy. will get the model advertisement board approved by the P.W.D. prior to fixing them on lamp posts.
(v) The Coy. will arrange for painting of the lamp pasts at its cost after every five years at their cost."
The petitioner was also informed that on receipt of the formal acceptance of the above terms and conditions in writing by him further action in the matter would be taken. The petitioner by his letter dated 3rd, May, 1977 intimated the Deputy Secretary II, PWD (Works Branch) about his acceptance of the term; and conditions mentioned in the said letter and also requested him to let him know the procedure for payment of the quarterly advance rental amounting to Rs. 3,000/- in order to enable him to remit the said amount. It has been stated that after acceptance of the letter dated 2nd May, 1977, the petitioner parchased materials for manufacturing frames and fixtures required for display of kiosks to be fixed on Maidan area and VIP Road. The petitioner also contacted various agencies and clients for the purpose of display of advertisements in the kiosks and had received response from several clients in this matter. It has also been stated that the petitioner's Branch Manager one Mr. A. D. Fenn culled on the appropriate authorities of the Public Works Department for issue of necessary challan for deposit of the advance sum of Rs. 3,000/- but as the challan was not issued by the department the advance rent could not be deposited. On 5th of August, 1977, the petitioner's Branch Manager was surprised to find about 5 or 6 boards and/or kiosks put up in the Maidan area in the name of 'Adwave', the business of the respondent No.2. The petitioner made enquiries in the office of the PWD hut he was not given any information if the final decision for putting up kiosks in the Maidan area and on the VIP Road was given in favour of the respondent No. 2. It has been pleaded that the respondent No.1 after the decision to grant licence to the petitioner No.1 by its letter dated 2nd May, 1977 could not give permission or licence to the respondent No. 2 for display of advertisements in kiosks on street lamp posts. It has also been stated that the respondent No. 2 accompanied the petitioner's Branch Manager. Mr. Fenn at the time of when talks were held regarding the grant of permission to display of advertisements in kiosks to be installed in the Maidan area and in the VIP Road. The respondent No. 1 is estopped from permitting anyone else except the petit
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
