Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
K.M. JOSEPH, V.K. BIST, JJ.
Harit Advertising, Avas Vikas Colony & Others - Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 191, 423, 437 of 2017
Decided On : 07-12-2017
Advertisement Rights - Legal Provisions - Uttarakhand Municipal Corporation Act, 1959, Uttarakhand Nagar Nigam (Advertising License and Fixation of Tax on Advertisement and Recovery) Rules, 2015 - The court discussed the legality and validity of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondent-Local Body. The conditions required the bidder to be a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or a Partnership registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 for the last three years, and to have an average turnover of Rs. 3 Crores during the last three financial years. The appellants challenged these conditions, arguing that they were not Partnership Firms or Companies and that the turnover requirement was violative of the Statute itself. The court considered the legal framework and the absence of specific provisions discountenancing such conditions, and found that the conditions were not arbitrary and had a nexus with the quality of work to be performed. The court dismissed the appeals, leaving open the question of whether the condition restricting participation to Firms and Companies was valid.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals related to the legality and validity of conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondent-Local Body. The conditions required the bidder to be a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or a Partnership registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 for the last three years, and to have an average turnover of Rs. 3 Crores during the last three financial years. The appellants challenged these conditions, arguing that they were not Partnership Firms or Companies and that the turnover requirement was violative of the Statute itself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions were not arbitrary and had a nexus with the quality of work to be performed. The court dismissed the appeals, leaving open the question of whether the condition restricting participation to Firms and Companies was valid.
Issues: The issues involved the legality and validity of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement issued by the respondent-Local Body, specifically the requirement for bidders to be Partnership Firms or Companies with an average turnover of Rs. 3 Crores during the last three financial years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions were not arbitrary and had a nexus with the quality of work to be performed. The court dismissed the appeals, leaving open the question of whether the condition restricting participation to Firms and Companies was valid.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, leaving open the question of whether the condition restricting participation to Firms and Companies was valid.
K.M. Joseph, J.
1. These three Appeals relate to common subject matter. Special Appeal No. 191 of 2017 is directed against the judgment in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2921 of 2016. Special Appeal No. 423 of 2017, which is filed by the very same appellants as in Special Appeal No. 191 of 2017, is directed against the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1291 of 2017. Special Appeal No. 437 of 2017, which is filed by other appellants, is directed against the order passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1566 of 2017.
2. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2921 of 2016 are as follows:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the tender notice issued online on 15.10.2016 (Annexure No. 8) by respondent no. 2 being against the Rules 2015.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no. 2 to issue fresh tender as per the Gazeett Notification of relevant Rules 2015 issued by the State of Uttarakhand.”
3. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1291 of 2017 are as follows:
“1. To summon the complete record pertaining to the case.
2. To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of mandamus setting aside and declaring the entire tender process right from the floating of illegal e-tender dated 6-5-17 (annexure no. 7) uptill the award of tender in favour of respondent no. 3 to be void ab-initio and vitiated due to illegalities and irregularities committed therein.
3. To issue the Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to issue fresh tender as per the Gazette Notification of Relevant Rules 2015 issued by the State of Uttarakhand after permitting the Proprietor ship firm like that of the petitioners herein to participate in the same.”
4. Reliefs sought in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1566 of 2017 are as follows:
“(a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the tender floated by the respondent No. 1 dated 3.05.2017, thereby inviting bids for the grant of advertisement rights in respect of 126 Unipoles and 700 pole kiosks within the Nagar Nigam Limits of District Haridwar.
(b) To restrain the respondent No. 1 to execute any agreement with respondent No. 2 for the grant of advertisement rights in respect of 126 Unipoles and 700 pole kiosks within the Nagar Nigam Limits of District Haridwar.”
5. The question, which is raised in all these cases, relates to legality & validity of two clauses in the advertisement issued by the respondent-Local Body in the matter of settling their right to advertise on public land. The two conditions, which have been taken exception to by the appellants, are, in substance, as follows:
The condition, which is stipulated, is found to be in Clause 21, 22 & 48, which read as under:
“Clause 21. The bidder shall be a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or a Partnership registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 for the last three years, and inter-alia should be in the business of outdoor advertising in India and should have at atleast average turnover of; Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crore only) or more during last three financial year viz. 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16. In this connection bidders are required to submit the audited balance sheet and profit and loss account for last three financial years certified by a Chartered Accountant.
Clause 22. The bidder should be recognized for outdoor advertisement services. Copy of the valid certification of registration as advertising agency should be attached.
Clause 48. BID DOCUMENTS FOR EVALUATION PROCESS
A. (ii) Copy of incorporation/registration of company under Company Act 1956.
(iii) PAN Card together with copy of trade licence, registration of service tax etc.
(iv) Copy of duly Audited Balance Sheet and profit and loss A/c for last three Financial Year with an average turnover of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- (Rupee
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
