Back
2025 Supreme(All) 4038
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
SANGEETA CHANDRA, AMITABH KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Moksh Innovation Inc.Thru. Manager Jitendra Singh Bisht - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lko. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 10659 of 2025
Decided On : 12-12-2025
For the Petitioner: Piyush Kumar Agarwal.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, Namit Sharma.
Constitutional writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate upon disputed contractual obligations, particularly where the contract has been rescinded due to default and such termination has previously attained finality through judicial orders.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Contractual dispute - Petitioner sought restraint against removal of advertisement displays - Earlier cancellation of contract due to default in payments had attained finality through previous court orders - Writ jurisdiction not appropriate for adjudication of civil contractual disputes where the contract stands terminated and previous challenges have been unsuccessful. (Paras 21, 23, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, engaged in displaying advertisements on public utility sites, challenged the systematic removal of its displays by the local authority. The concerned authority had cancelled the allotment contract due to persistent outstanding dues and repeated breaches of contract terms. The petitioner had previously approached the court on multiple occasions contesting the cancellation, and all such petitions, as well as subsequent review and clarification applications, were rejected. The current petition sought to restrain the authorities from removing signage, asserting the subsistence of a licence which the authorities had already declared terminated.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the cancellation notices were comprehensive and had been upheld in previous proceedings. It noted that the petitioner was a habitual defaulter regarding payment of dues, and the orders of cancellation had attained finality. The court held that the petitioner is essentially attempting to enforce a contract that no longer exists.
Issues: Whether the court should exercise writ jurisdiction to enforce a contractual obligation where the underlying agreement has been terminated due to financial default, and whether the doctrine of finality precludes the petitioner from re-litigating the validity of the contract cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that as the cancellation order had attained finality and the dispute arose purely out of a breach of commercial terms, the court should not invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for a party seeking to enforce a terminated contract is to approach the competent civil court for specific performance or damages. (Paras 21, 27)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identification of litigation parties and prayer for relief. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factual overview of contract allotment and cancellation events. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondents' arguments regarding validity of cancellation notices. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 4. applicability of res judicata regarding previous court orders. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. contractual breach and exhaustion of remedies in writ jurisdiction. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. dismissal of writ due to lack of merit. (Para 29 , 30) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Nigam.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main prayers "
"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ of mandamus, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents or whomsoever acting or claiming on Restrained their behalf be restrained from tearing the advertisement displays, etc., at the allotted sites of the petitioner till November 2026, i.e., currency of licence, upon performance of terms by the petitioner.
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction or a writ of Mandamus, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents or whomsoever acting or claiming on their behalf be directed to comply with principles of natural justice qua the petitioner-(respecting at least renewal dated 13.10.2021) before taking any action entailing consumption of precious contract time and wasting thereof in avoidable litigation.
(iii) By an appropriate ad-interim order, the opposite parties, their employees, servants, agents whomsoever acting or claiming on their behalf be restrained from tearing the advertisement displays, etc., at the allotted sites of the petitioner till November 2026, i.e., currency of licence extended vide letter dated 10.10.2021, upon performance of terms by the petitioner, during pendency of the instant petition before this Hon'ble Court."
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on 10.10.2006 and 01.12.2006, agreements were entered into between the petitioner and Nagar Nigam allotting traffic islands for a period of five years with a clause for renewal after every five years for valuable consideration. The latest renewal letter issued by Nagar Nigam is dated 13.10.2021, which was valid till November, 2026. For display of advertisements/signages etc. on such traffic islands, bus shelters and other sites allotted by Nagar Nigam, Lucknow Nagar Nigam was entitled to charge tax/fee in accordance with law.
4. The petitioner has deposited advance tax for the traffic islands till March, 2026. On 05.06.2025, a letter was issued by Lucknow Nagar Nigam intimating cancellation of allotment of traffic islands. The petitioner informed Nagar Nigam through its letters dated 11.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 that the renewal of allotment of traffic islands was valid till November, 2026 and advance tax had also been deposited till September, 2025.
5. Thereafter, a Shuddhi Patra/corrigendum was issued by Lucknow Nagar Nigam on 22.07.2025, withdrawing its earlier letter dated 05.06.2025. Till 12.10.2025, the petitioner continued to display advertisements on 19 traffic islands which had been allotted to him. However, thereafter, the employees of Nagar Nigam tore/removed such advertisements/signages from the said 19 traffic islands without any reason and without giving any notice.
6. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was also granted a lease of 30 years to operate 18 bus shelters by the Public Works Department in December, 2005 and November, 2006. However, the petitioner chose to retain only three such spots/bus shelters for display of advertisements/signages and informed Nagar Nigam accordingly. The petitioner calculated the outstanding dues to the tune of Rs.2,67,225/- and paid the same by cheque in favour of Luc
