Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Pioneer Publicity Corporation Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3429 of 2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
The court reaffirmed that a formal allotment letter is mandatory before imposing fees and ruled for full remission of license fee due to non-provision of feasible advertising sites.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - No specific laws or sections cited in the judgment - The case deals with the entitlement to remission of license fee following interruption in advertisement display due to site removal and allocation issues.
(B) Administrative Law - The court addressed the principles of fairness regarding the allocations of advertisement sites and the responsibility of public authorities in ensuring feasibility of alternative sites.
(C) Contract Law - The necessity of a formal allotment letter before charging any fees was emphasized.
(D) The court found that the appellant was entitled to remission from license fee payment from 03.05.2019 to 15.12.2020 due to the unavailability of a feasible site for operations. (E) The petitioner's obligation to pay fees was questioned in light of denied access to advertisement opportunities due to site removal. (F) The final decision set aside the earlier limited remission and ordered full remission with a refund of excess payments along with interest at 10%. (G) Parties involved: Appellant and Respondent Government authority responsible for public works. (H) No dissenting opinions noted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of license and site allocation to petitioner. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 2. disputes over site feasibility and alternative offerings. (Para 11 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. joint inspections and identified sites. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. entitlement to remission on license fees. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 5. final order and directions regarding fee refund. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
CM APPL.20492/2021
For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. Reply is taken on record.
Application is disposed of.
W.P.(C) 3429/2021
1. The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner impugns notice dated 17.07.2020 to the limited extent that it grants remission to the petitioner, from payment of license fee only for the period 03.05.2019 to 07.06.2019 and not for the entire period from 03.05.2019 to 15.12.2020 during which the petitioner allegedly could not display the advertisements on one of the unipole sites allotted to the petitioner.
3. Petitioner was granted exclusive rights and license to construct, operate and display advertisements by the respondent pursuant to the tender notice dated 06.11.2017. One of the sites allotted to the petitioner for erecting the unipole was located at Bharion Marg T Junction R/S towards Purana Qila Road. Said site was allotted to the petitioner on 04.01.2018.
4. The unipole was removed on 02.05.2019 by the Public Works Department because of ongoing construction of the Integrated Transit Corridor Development Plan in and around Pragati Maidan.
5. In terms of the allotment petitioner was to be offered an alternative site for constructing, operating and displaying the advertisements on a unipole.
6. As per the petitioner first time the site was allotted to the petitioner was on 17.07.2020, however, when the petitioner commenced the construction of the unipole, petitioner found that the said allotted site was also not physically feasible as there were heavy electrical wires under the allotted site.
7. As per the petitioner this was also acknowledged by the respondents and respondents thereafter opined that there was no further site available to be allotted to the petitioner. The contract of the petitioner in terms of the tender notice dated 06.11.2017 came to an end on 15.12.2020 by petitioner surrendering all the sites.
8. It is an admitted position that the petitioner has surrendered the cluster of advertisement sites, allotted to the petitioner pursuant to the said tender notice, on 15.12.2020.
9. Claim of the petitioner is that petitioner should be granted a remission from payment of license fee during the period 03.05.2019 (i.e. the date when the unipole at the said site was removed by PWD) till 15.12.2020 (i.e. the date when Petitioner surrendered all the sites). This petitioner contends is because he was not allotted an alternative site and the site that was allotted on 17.07.2020 was not feasible.
10. The contention of the respondent is that petitioner was, in a joint inspection, offered an alternative site on 08.06.2019, however, petitioner refused to accept the same on the ground that the same was not commercially feasible and thereafter on the request of petitioner further alternative sites were explored and ultimately on 17.07.2020 an alternative site was allotted.
11. It is not in dispute that the site allotted on 17.07.2020 was not found to be feasible on account of heavy electrical cables running under the site.
12. It is not in dispute that the unipole constructed on one of the sites allotted to the petitioner was removed on 02.05.2019 by the workers of Public Works Department, on account of the construction of the Integrated Transit Corridor Development Plan.
13. Thereafter a joint inspection was carried out and on 08.06.2019 one site was identified. The inspection report dated 08.06.2019 records that during inspection few locations were observed as per Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2017 but the p
