The court emphasized that parties can come to terms independent of the initial agreement, and if a compromise offer is accepted, the Corporation cannot apply another formula for computing the unpaid rental charges.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to release an amount of security deposit of Rs. 39.85 lacs (round about) with interest. The litigation has checkered history.

2. Briefly stated facts are as under:-

Petitioner is a proprietorship concern and is engaged in the business of exhibiting advertisements on bill-boards and kiosk at various places in the State of Gujarat. Vadodara Municipal Corporation had awarded a contract to the petitioner for exhibiting such advertisements on the electric poles within the Corporation limit of the city of Baroda. For awarding the contract at different rates the city was divided into four zones. For Zone No. 1 the contract period was three years commencing from 27.10.2009. For Zone No. 2 the contract period was three years commencing from 18.3.2010. For Zone No. 3 the contract period was three years commencing from 17.10.2011 and for Zone No. 4 the contract period was three years commencing from 20.09.2011.

3. During the course of such period serious disputes arose between the petitioner and the Corporation. The Corporation therefore passed an order dated 17.8.2012 and terminated the petitioner's contract for all four zones. On 13.9.2012, the Corporation passed further order debarring the petitioner from doing any business with the Corporation for a period of three years.

4. The petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 14541 of 2012 challenging such orders. The High Court set aside the order of blacklisting on the ground that the same was passed without hearing. Insofar as order of termination of contract is concerned, the court allowed the petitioner to make a representation. The petition was disposed of on 9.11.2012 accordingly.

5. The petitioner filed writ petitions being Special Civil Application Nos. 16743 and 16744 of 2012 and again questioned the legality of the order of the Corporation of premature termination of the contract with respect to zones No. 3 and 4, since by then the period of contract for zones No. 1 and 2 had already come to an end. In such petitions the High Court on 20.12.2012 while issuing rule making it returnable on 28.1.2013 gave following directions:-

"The respondents are restrained from inviting fresh tenders till the returnable date and if any fresh tenders have been invited, no further action be taken on such tenders. D.S. Permitted."

6. This order was clarified by an order dated 7.1.2013 passed below note for speaking to minutes, in which the Court granted interim relief in terms of para 8(C) of the petition. In such paragraph the petitioner had prayed for an injunction against the implementation, execution and operation of the order passed by the Corporation terminating the contracts and with the further direction not to obstruct the petitioner from placing advertisements on the electric poles on all four zones.

7. The petitioner filed yet another petition being Special Civil Application No. 3737 of 2013 questioning the action of the Corporation to invite fresh tenders for the same purpose. The interim relief earlier granted by the High Court continued from time to time till in a common order dated 9.4.2013 came to be passed in earlier petition as well as in fresh Special Civil Application No. 3737 of 2013, whereby the Court provided as under:-

"After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that in all these writ petitions, interim relief is required to be granted. Therefore, we are passing fresh orders of stay. The respondents are restrained from inviting fresh tenders till the next date of hearing and if any fresh tenders have been invited, no further action be taken on such tenders."

8. This order was clarified by the High Court by a further order dated 13.8.2013 that the stay against tenders for advertisements for zones No. 1 and 2 does not survive. However, regarding fresh tenders for zones No. 3 and 4 the Court deferred its decision for a later date. At that stage, it was conveyed