Alpesh Y. Kogje, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for setting aside order of blacklisting dated 07.08.2013 of the petitioner as well as for setting aside a termination - cum - demand notice dated 01.02.2013.

2. Brief facts are as under:-

"A. The petitioner, being registered company engaged in the business of publication of outdoor media industry, bidded on-line in response to the advertisement dated 26.12.2007 published in the newspaper inviting the tender to undertake work of designing, financing building, maintaining and transferring 100 bus pick-up stands/queue shed at various location on different routes of the bus service maintained by the respondent - corporation in the city of Rajkot.

B. After the due tender process, the bid of the petitioner was accepted and a license agreement (herein after referred to as the Agreement) dated 21.02.2008 was executed between the petitioners and respondent-2 for the period of 10 years.

C. The petitioner as per 'the Agreement' had to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month per bus stand to the respondent - corporation towards license fees and as against this the petitioner was authorised to display advertisement on such bus stand/queue shed from the private client and was also entitled to receive the advertisement charges.

D. Pursuant to successful entry into agreement, the petitioner proceeded to make huge investment in setting up of the bus stand/queue shed.

E. The petitioner, however, found that on many of the routes though bus stands were erected but bus service was not operational and in fact, during the period between December 2010-2011, there was no bus service at all, as a result of which petitioner was suffering huge losses.

F. As the petitioner was faced with aforementioned difficulties, he addressed communication to respondent - corporation to discontinue with the agreement partially. The petitioner repeated his request, however, no action was taken by the respondent - corporation and thereafter, on the ground that the petitioner has not been able to honour the contract, passed the impugned order on 07.08.2013 directing the petitioner to deposit balance amount Rs. 94,63,644/- towards license fees and also blacklisted the petitioner for period of 3 years."

3. Heard Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned senior advocate with Mr. Kunal Nanavati, learned advocate from Nanavati Associates for the petitioners and Shri J.P. Bhatt on behalf of the respondent-Corporation.

4. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that after agreement was entered into, the petitioner found that out of total 50 routes demarcated, only 31 routes were operational between the year 2007-2010. Moreover, between the year 2010-2011, there was no bus service at all. It was responsibility of respondent - corporation to ensure the bus services on such routes. Otherwise there was no meaning for petitioner to showcase advertisement of product of their clients.

4.1 It is submitted that in the year 2011, the petitioner requested the respondent - corporation to cancel and terminate the contract for 50 bus pick-up stands out of 100 pick-up stands. It was also requested to the respondent to exempt the petitioner from the payment of license fees with effect from 14.06.2012. It is submitted that though the petitioner had invested substantial amount policy of respondent-corporation itself not plying the bus on the routes where pick-up stands/queue shed were erected by the petitioner has led to frustration of contract at the behest of respondent-corporation.

4.2 It is submitted that despite the aforementioned position, the respondent-corporation instead of responding to the request made by the petitioner, called upon the petitioner company to pay license fees totaling to Rs. 55,90,290/- and indicated that the petitioner would be blacklisted.

4.3 Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners took this court through communication of the advertiser at annexure - I colly, to indicate that on a