Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tarun Kumar Basu, J.
Kanchanoor Bhaskar Shetty – Petitioner
Versus
State of West Bengal & other – Respondents
Civil Rule No. 5923 (W) of 1977
Decided On: February 9, 1978
CONTRACT - EXECUTIVE DECISION - GRANT OF PERMISSION FOR DISPLAY OF ADVERTISEMENT ON BOARDS TO BE AFFIXED ON LAMP POSTS - VALIDITY - WHETHER AN EXECUTIVE DECISION CAN CONFER ANY RIGHT ON THE PETITIONER - WHETHER THE DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CAN BE INVOKED - WHETHER THE DECISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN VIEW OF ARTICLE 166(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Classic Advertising, applied to the Public Works Department (PWD) for permission to display kiosks on street lamp posts in the Maidan area and VIP Road. The PWD responded with a letter outlining the terms and conditions for the permission, which the petitioner accepted. However, before a formal agreement could be executed, the PWD granted permission to another party, Gautam Ghosh, to display advertisements on the lamp posts. The petitioner challenged the grant of permission to Ghosh, arguing that the PWD's decision to grant permission to the petitioner was an executive decision that conferred certain rights on the petitioner, including the right to prevent others from being considered for the permission. The petitioner also argued that the PWD's decision was arbitrary and capricious and that the doctrine of promissory estoppel applied in the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner did not acquire any right that could be enforced in the writ jurisdiction. The court found that the parties were negotiating for a contract but had not entered into a formal contract as understood in the ordinary sense, i.e., without the constitutional inhibition of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The court also found that the doctrine of promissory estoppel could not be invoked in the case as there were not enough factual materials before the court to attract the doctrine.
Issues: 1. Whether an executive decision can confer any right on the petitioner? 2. Whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be invoked in the case? 3. Whether the decision is unconstitutional in view of Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An executive decision cannot confer any right on the petitioner that can be enforced in the writ jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in the case as there are not enough factual materials before the court to attract the doctrine. 3. The court refrained from expressing any opinion on the contention that the decision was unconstitutional in view of Article 166(1) of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. All interim orders were vacated, and there was no order as to costs.
Tarun Kumar Basu, J.
1. The facts of this case may be noted as briefly as possible.
The petitioner who carries on business under the name and style of Classic Advertising made an application on or about 19.1.1977 to the Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal for grant of a licence for the display of Kiosks on Street Lamp Posts owned by the Public Works Department in the Maidan area and on the VIP Road upto the Calcutta Airport.
On the 12.3.1977, an Assistant Chief Engineer of the Department wrote to the petitioner asking him to submit the drawing of display boards for examination by the authorities. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the drawings of display boards.
On the 16.4.1977 Deputy Secretary II of the said Department wrote to the petitioner to the effect that permission can be given on the acceptance of certain conditions as contained in that letter. On the 22.4.1977 the petitioner made a counter-offer.
On the 2.5.1977 the Deputy Secretary II of the Department sent a communication to the petitioner. This communication is of vital importance to the petitioner in the present case and may be set out in full herein-below:-
"Dated Calcutta, the 2.5.1977
Subject – Grant of permission for display of advertisement on boards to be affixed on lamp posts on VIP Road and Maidan Roads.
Sir,
With reference to your No. CA: K: 278: 77 dated 20.4.1977 on the above subject, I am directed to say that on careful consideration it has been decided as follows:-
(i) 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 month's 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 PWD Department prior to fixing them on lamp-posts.
(v) The coy will arrange for painting of the lamp posts at its cost after every five yean at their cost.
2. On receipt of your formal acceptance in writing to the terms and conditions spelt out above, further necessary action will be taken at this end.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
Deputy Secretary II, PWD."
Thereafter on the 3.5.1977 the petitioner wrote a letter to the laid Deputy Secretary II the contents whereof may be set out herein-below:-
"Dear Sir,
Re: Grant of permission for the display of advertisements on boards to be affixed on lamp posts belonging to PWD.
We thank you for your letter No. 1013-W(C) dated 2.5.1977 granting permission for the display if Kiosks (advertisement boards) on lamp posts belonging to the Public Works Department on VIP Road and Maidan roads.
We accept the conditions stipulated only in your letter under reply governing our appointment.
We would now request you to kindly let us know the procedure for paying the first quarterly advance rental amounting to Rs. 3,000/- to enable us to remit the amount immediately. An early reply will be appreciated.
Thanking you and assuring you of our best services at all times."
Thereafter there was no further correspondence between the parties mentioned hereinabove until August, 1977 when there was a demand for justice by the petitioner before the moving of the present application.
2. According to the petition, the petitioner after the letter of 3.5.1977 by which the terms offered to it by the Public Works Department were accepted was asked for inspection of the model, and offered the same for inspection to the appropriate officers of the Public Works Department. According to the petition, the petitioner was assured that the model would be inspected and approved after the agreement is executed. The petitioner was further assured that immediately on the signing of the agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the letter dated 2.5.1977 the petitioner would be allowed to commence display of kiosks on all the lamp posts in the said area. No object
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
