Auction of public authorities must be widely publicized in well-known newspapers to ensure wide participation and avoid violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed for a mandamus directing respondent No. 1 the Nagar Nigam, Meerut not to settle the contract in respect of advertisement hoardings in favour of respondent No. 2 and to restrain the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners over the hoarding sites.

( 2 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It has been alleged in paragraph 2 of the petition that the petitioners are engaged in the business of advertising by fixing hoardings on the road-sides within the municipal limits of the Nagar Nigam, Meerut. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is alleged that the Nagar mahapalika (now known as nagar Nigam) has framed Rules for setting such contracts. True copy of the Rules is annexed as Annexure-1 to the petition.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid Rules do not prescribe the manner in which the hoardings are to be let out. The petitioners have erected their own hoarding on the road-sides within the Meerut city and and they are regularly depositing tax in according with the aforesaid Rules vide annexure-2 to the petition. In paragraph 7 of the petition it is alleged that a tender notice was published in the daily newspaper dainik jagran on 16-6-2000 by which the Nagar nigam has invited tenders in respect of the hoarding boards. A true copy of the tender notice is annexed as Annexure-3 to the petition. Against this tender notice Writ Petition no. 27680 of 2000 was filed in this Court which is still pending. However, as stated in paragraph 9 of the petition no steps were taken by the Nagar Nigam in pursuance of the aforesaid notice dated 16. 6. 2000 and the notice stood withdrawn.

( 4 ) IN paragraph 10 of the petition it is alleged that now the Nagar Nigam has without inviting any application or holding any auction settled the contracts of all the hoarding sites within the municipal limits of Meerut for a period of three years w. e. f. 1-10-2000. In paragraph 11 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioners have already deposited the requisite tax with the Nagar Nigam Authorities for the financial year 2000-2001 in respect of the hoardings which are being utilised by the petitioners for the purposes of advertisement. Hence it is alleged that the Nagar nigam cannot settle that contract in favour of any third person.

( 5 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 18 of the petition that the Nagar Nigam has issued notice in the daily newspaper amar Ujala on 24. 9. 2000 for removing the hoardings, on road-sides/private places by 28-9-2000, failing which they shall be forcibly removed oide annexure-5 to the petition. It is alleged in paragraph 17 of the petition that the notice is in violation of this Courts order as quoted in paragraph 17 of the petition.

( 6 ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2. In paragraph 10 of the same it is alleged that publication of the auction was made in two daily newspapers on 13-7-2000 and 14-7-2000 vide Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 to the affidavit. These advertisements state that the auction will take place on 22-7-2000 at 11. 00 a. m. in the office of the Addl. Mukhya nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam. The respondent No. 2 participated in the auction and he was the highest bidder whose bid was 11,27,600/- and he deposited a sum of rs. 2,81,650/ -. True copy of the receipt of the same is annexed as Annexure CA-3 to the affidavit. The auction was confirmed and a letter was despatched to that effect by the Tax superintendent, Nagar Nigam, Meerut on 24-7-2000. Thereafter an agreement was executed vide Annexure no. CA-4 to the affidavit. It is alleged that the petitioner had a full opportunity of participating in the auction but they did not do so. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit it is stated that petitioners have no right to continue and they cannot obstruct respondent No. 1 to make the auction.

( 7 ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed.

( 8 ) IN paragraph 10 of the same it is stated that Annexures CA-1 and CA-2 are bogus documents and no reliance