By the Court.—The main question involved in this writ petition is, whether money charged by the Cantonment Board, Kanpur (the Board) for granting permission to use its land for putting up advertisement hoarding is a tax and can it be auctioned.

THE FACTS

2. The petitioner is said to be an association of 11 advertisers and registered with Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur (the Registrar). According to the petitioner:

Its members were doing business of putting up advertisement hoarding within the area of the Board;

The Board used to fix up the rates and the advertisers used to apply for grant of permission to affix advertisement on the fixed rate.

3. The rates fixed by the Board were revised from time to time. They were lastly revised by the resolution of the Board dated 24.5.2007. By this revision, the rates of “13.70 and ‘10/- per sqare feet per month were fixed for different roads within the area of the Board.

4. For the financial year starting from 1.4.2010, the Board published an advertisement on 13.3.2010 in Rashtriya Sahara, inviting sealed tenders for right to get advertisement hoardings affixed in its area for two years. The petitioner or its members neither participated in the auction nor filed their tenders.

5. Three persons had filed their tenders. The tenders were opened on 25.3.2010. The tender of Jagran Prakashan Pvt Ltd, 2, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur (Respondent-5) was the highest, offering bid of ‘45 lakhs per annum.

6. The bid of Respondent-5 was accepted. It was awarded contract to get the advertisement hoardings affixed for the period of two years starting from 1.4.2010. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition, challenging the award of contract to respondent-5.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

7. We have heard Sri WH Khan and Sri JH Khan for the petitioner; and Sri SD Dubey and Sri CB Gupta for the respondents. The following points arise for determination in the case.

(i) Whether the petition should be thrown out as it lacks material particulars;

(ii) Whether amount claimed by the Board for granting permission to affix the advertisement hoardings over its land is a tax;

(iii) Even if it is a fee, then can it be done without there being bye-laws.

(iv) Whether the auction is vitiated due to bad faith on part of Respondent-4;

(v) Was the auction duly publicised?

(vi) Has the petitioner any right to maintain the writ petition?

1st POINT: PETITION VAGUE—NO RIGHT

8. It is alleged in the petition that the petitioner-1 is an association of eleven advertisers and is registered with the Registrar. However, there is nothing on the record to show as to,

(i) Who are its members?

(ii) How is It registered?

(iii) Is it a society, or a firm, or something else?

9. The petitioner-2 is said to be the secretary of petitioner-1. However there is nothing on the record to show that he had permission to put up advertisement hoarding before the auction or he had applied for renewal of his permission.

10. The writ petition is liable to be thrown, as it lacks material particulars. However, we are not dismissing the writ petition on this ground but are deciding it on merits.

2nd POINT: NOT A TAX

11. The counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice Links Advertisers v. Bangalore Municipality, AIR 1977 SC 1646 (the Links case) and submitted that:

An advertisement tax can be imposed by the Board under Section 66(2) of the Cantonment Act, 2006 (the Act) read with Section 172(1)(h) of the UP Municipal Corporations Act, 1959;

The amount to affix advertisement hoarding is a tax; and

No procedure for imposition of tax has been followed.

12. There is no dispute that procedure for imposition of tax has not been followed. However, according to the Board, it is not a tax but a fee for use of the land of the Board.

13. In the Links case (paragraph-2), the advertisement hoardings were not affixed over the land of the Board but were affixed on the land of the railway administration that the petitioner had taken on lease. It w