Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1573
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sangeeta K. Vishen, J.
Selsites Outdoor Advertising Through Mr. Jayeshbhai Shah & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Mahanagar Seva Sadan & Anr. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 11621 of 2024
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr SN Soparkar, Senior Counsel For Tirth Nayak With Neel Vasant
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that vague petitions lacking specific grievances cannot be entertained, emphasizing the need for precise details in legal challenges.
Headnote:
Advertising - Tender Violations - Ahmedabad Outdoor Advertising Policy - 2023 - The court discussed the obligations of the Corporation under the Outdoor Advertising Policy and tender conditions, emphasizing compliance to protect existing advertisers' rights, ultimately dismissing the petition due to vagueness and lack of precise grievances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, leading advertisers, challenged the actions of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and respondent No. 2 for erecting gantries and unipoles that allegedly violated tender terms and outdoor advertising policies, affecting their business.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition vague and imprecise, lacking specific details on how each petitioner was affected, and noted that the Corporation's inaction did not warrant judicial intervention at this stage.
Issues: Whether the actions of the Corporation and respondent No. 2 in erecting structures violated tender terms and outdoor advertising policies, and whether the petitioners had standing to challenge these actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners failed to provide sufficient details to substantiate their claims and that the representations made to the Corporation were still pending consideration, thus the petition was dismissed.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
ORDER :
Sangeeta k. Vishen, J.
1. Mr.Tirth Nayak, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has tendered the draft amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. The same shall be carried out forthwith.
2. By this petition, the petitioners, inter alia have prayed for direction to the respondent No.1- Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") to take action against the respondent No.2 in respect of the gantries, unipoles and structures placed by the respondent No.2 in violation of the tender terms, outdoor policy and the order passed by this Court. Further prayer is for direction to the Corporation to ensure that the respondent No.2, constructs the structures as per the tender terms, outdoor policy and the order passed by this Court. Besides, the petitioners have also prayed for cancellation of the tender Nos.AMCADVEST2324520 and AMCADVEST2324521 awarded to the respondent No.2.
3. Tersely stated are the facts. The petitioners claim to be leading advertisers in Gujarat and are in the business of outdoor advertising since several years. The petitioners have several hoardings, gantries and kiosks at various locations in the city of Ahmedabad and across the State. It is the case of the petitioners that the tenders in question were floated for erection of gantries for the purpose of advertisement in the zones in the land owned by the Corporation. The tender bearing no. AMCADVEST2324520 was for the West Zone, North-West Zone, South-West Zone of the city of Ahmedabad for potential display area of 3500 sq. mts. for an upset price of Rs.8,75,00,000/-, while tender bearing no. AMCADVEST232451 was for the North Zone, South Zone, East Zone and Central Zone of the city of Ahmedabad for potential display area of 3500 sq. mts. for an upset price of Rs.3,85,00,000/-. The respondent no. 2 was the sole bidder and the tenders were allotted to it for the erection of the gantries in the zones indicated in the tender and the land owned by the Corporation.
3.1. According to the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 was required to place the gantries as per the terms and conditions of the tender and in compliance with the orders passed by this Court. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no. 2 disregarding the tender conditions, applicable rules and regulations and the orders passed by this Court has put up unipoles and gantries in such a manner that it blocks the advertisements put up by the petitioners. The grievance raised is that the Corporation is duty bound to ensure the compliance of the rules, regulations and the orders passed by this Court; however, the Corporation turning blind eye, has not taken any steps and thereby, the inaction on the part of the Corporation reflects that the Corporation is favouring the respondent no. 2 and it is in violation of the rights of the petitioners under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and thus the action/inaction of the respondent is arbitrary. Hence, the captioned writ petition.
4. Mr.SN Soparkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr.Tirth Nayak, learned Advocate while inviting the attention of this Court to the tender conditions, submitted that the respondent no. 2 is obliged to construct various hoardings/gantries at various locations within the city of Ahmedabad in such a manner, that it does not affect the existing advertisements and the hoardings of the petitioners. It is further submitted that Clause 15 titled ‘Structure/Impediments’ of the Ahmedabad Outdoor Advertising Policy- 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the Policy of 2023"), provides that the structure used for display of advertisements should not, inter alia, block the existing advertisement boards/hoarding or the proposed site for the advertisement boards/ hoarding for which permission is already accorded by the Corporation; except to the Corporation owned potential display sites. It is submitted that the Policy of 2023, has not been challenged; however, the fact r
