JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA SARKAR, J.

1. The petitioner is a private limited company. In this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the demand for an amount of Rs.3,28,67,522/- as Land Utilisation Charges (in short LUC) vide Bill Nos. 2013-2014L00860, 2014-2015L02746, 2015-2016L00674, 2015-016L00675, 2015-2016L00676, 2015-2016L00677, 2013-2014L00857, 2014-2015L02743, 2015-2016L00662, 2015-2016L00663, 2015-2016L00664, 2015-2016L00665, 2013-2014L00858, 2014-2015L02744, 2015-2016L00666, 2015-2016L00667, 2015-2016L00668, 2015-2016L00669, 2013-2014L00859, 2014-2015L02745, 2015-2016L00670, 2015-2016L00671,2015-2016L00672, 2015-2016L00673 all dated 29th July, 15 and Bill Nos.2013-2014L00861, 2014-2015L02747, 2015-2016L00678, 2015- 2016L02747, 2015-2016L00678, 2015-2016L00679, 2015-2016L00680, 2015- 2016L00681 dated July 30, 2015, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.

2. The respondent No.2, namely, Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners (in short HRBC) through the office of the respondent No.3, that is, the Director (Pr. & Co.) issued notices inviting tenders. Agencies, individual firms and individual advertisers having adequate capacity to fabricate, erect and illuminate different types of display boards, hoardings, kiosks on different structures on bridges, flyovers, piers etc. under the control and management of HRBC were called upon to participate in the tender process.

3. The petitioner participated in the tender process and the HRBC upon issuance of letters of acceptance dated June 12, 2013, July 22, 2013 and August 2, 2013, accepted the petitioner as the successful bidder for the jobs described in the different tender notices. Agreements to that effect were also executed between the petitioner and the HRBC. HRBC permitted the petitioner to erect hoardings, kiosks, gantries etc., at the allotted sites out of the various sites at Vidyasagar Setu, Gariahat Flyover, A.J.C Bose Road Flyover, Beck Bagan Ramp, Park Street Flyover, Nager Bazar Flyover (Dum Dum), Kidderpur Flyover, and Bridge all under the Hooghly River Bridge Commissioners. Later some of these sites were declared as no advertisement zone. The petitioner was also required to erect their installation and structures in order to display the advertisements on the basis of the terms and conditions of the tender process. The petitioner in lieu of such selection, had to pay to HRBC the accepted value of each of the contracts as mentioned in the bid document. The contractor was also required to pay the amount as contained in the Terms and Conditions of Contract and Instructions to Bidders. Some of the clauses being relevant in this context are set out below:-

"7. A security deposit @ 10% of the value of the accepted contract should be submitted by the successful bidder along with his bid money, which should be valid for 3 ½ years i.e upto 6 months beyond the stipulated period of contract (the contract period is 36 months i.e 3 Years in this case). After expiry of contract and subsequent removal of hoarding structure within stipulated time the security deposit will be refunded without interest.

8. On issue of LOI (Letter of Intent) after completion of the structure the entire sum covering the chargers for 3 years (36 months) commencing from 61st day from the date of issue of LOA or date of erection of display board (whichever is earlier) as has been stipulated in the foregoing paragraphs No.3, has to be deposited.

On completion of the period of 3 years (36 months) the successful bidder will have to remove all his structures and displays at his own const within 15 days commencing from the date of completion of 3 years. Failure to remove the structures/displays after the expiry of the contract period plus 15 days as mentioned above, shall be at the risk and const of the successful bidder. The bidder will have no right on the display board or materials left on the structures or at the ground the HRBC shall have full authority to remove those and dispose as will be considered appropriate b