Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Sapphire Media Services - Appellant
Versus
South Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 2515 of 2021 & CM. Appls. 7388 of 2021, 17709 of 2021, 35700 of 2021 and W.P.(C) 11574 of 2021 & CM. Appls. 35703 of 2021
Decided On : 04-07-2022
The court ruled that advertisements displays must comply with the Outdoor Advertising Policy approved by the Supreme Court, emphasizing the necessity of proper permissions and adherence to established procedures for validity.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - Sections 143 to 146, 430 - Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017 - Quashing of letters issued by South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC) directing removal of advertisements on bus queue shelters - Petitioner argues that advertisements were duly granted under a concession agreement, but it was found contrary to the Outdoor Advertising Policy which mandates adherence to specific procedures for advertisement rights. (Paras 7, 16, 45)
(B) Adherence to Policy - The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with the Outdoor Advertising Policy approved by the Supreme Court for all advertisement contracts. (Paras 15, 16, 46)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that they were granted rights to display advertisements after following proper tender procedures. SDMC's letters threatening to remove these advertisements were challenged on the grounds of procedural validity.
Findings of Court:
The letters directing the petitioner to cease advertisement displays were upheld, as the concession agreement contravened the established Outdoor Advertising Policy, thus rendering the agreement and displayed advertisements illegitimate.
Issues: The primary issues included whether the advertisements were validly allotted under the Outdoor Advertising Policy and the legality of the concession agreement entered into between the petitioner and DTIDC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s contract violated the Outdoor Advertising Policy, highlighting that prior permissions and consultations were not secured as mandated, making the contract unenforceable.
Result: Petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petitions and agreements. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions regarding advertisement rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. details on the outdoor advertising policy, 2017. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. importance of adherence to the 2017 policy. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. procedure for advertisement permissions outlined. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. revenue sharing and fixed pricing structure. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 7. contract duration in relation to the policy. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. failure to comply with procedural requirements. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 9. implications of prior decisions on the current policy. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 10. reasons for dismissing the petitions. (Para 45 , 46) |
| 11. conclusion on the case outcome. (Para 47) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Petitioner has filed W.P. (C) 2515/2021 seeking quashing of two letters, both dated 11.01.2021, whereby the respondent No.1, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC, for short) has threatened to remove the advertisements on the bus queue shelters displayed by the petitioner.
2. In W.P. (C) 11574/2021, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 15.09.2021, whereby petitioner has been directed to remove the advertisements displayed on top of the bus queue shelters.
3. At the time of hearing of the petitions, it was agreed that the disputes arising in W.P. (C) 11574/2021 would be dependent upon the decision in W.P. (C) 2515/2021 and as such no separate counter affidavit or rejoinder has been filed by the respondents to the said petition.
4. As per petitioner, invitation for proposal for display of advertisements on bus queue shelters was invited by respondent No.3, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (DTIDC for short). Petitioner submitted its proposal, which was accepted by DTIDC and a letter of acceptance dated 27.11.2019 was issued. It is contended that the same was issued after following the prescribed procedure for submission of bids.
5. On 06.12.2019, a concession agreement for uplifting, cleaning and maintenance of 96 stainless-steel bus queue shelters was entered into. As a consideration, for uplifting, cleaning and maintenance of the bus queue shelters, advertisement rights vested into DTIDC were transferred to the petitioner.
6. On 24.01.2020, it is alleged that, the sites were handed over to the petitioner for commencement of work and display of advertisements.
7. On 11.01.2021, the letters impugned in W.P. (C) 2515/2021 were issued by respondent No.1, SDMC, threatening removal of the advertisements on the bus queue shelters on the ground that the allotment is in contravention of the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017. The letters were duly responded to by the petitioner contending that the petitioner has been duly allotted the bus queue shelters after following due process of tender allotment. Said action has been challenged in W.P. (C) 2515/2021.
8. Pending the said petition (W.P. (C) 2515/2021), another noticed dated 15.09.2021 was issued, directing the petitioner to remove the structures fixed on the roof top of the bus queue shelters, failing which it was threatened by the SDMC that they shall remove the advertisements displayed at the cost and liability of the petitioner. Said notice has been challenged in W.P. (C) 11574/2021.
9. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has been allotted the rights to advertise after following the due tender process by DTIDC, which had full right and authority to allot the said bus queue shelters for advertisement rights.
10. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that disputes, if any, between the SDMC and DTIDC are their personal disputes, which should be inter-se resolved by the two authorities and no liability can be placed on the petitioner qua the same.
11. Counter affidavit has been filed by DTIDC contending that the allotment had been made to the petitioner after following
