The respondent corporation is authorized to impose taxes on advertisements and lawfully invite tenders for installation of hoardings.

1. Heard Shri B. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent - corporation.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the notice inviting tender dated 13-3-2003 (Annexure P / 1) issued by the respondent - corporation and further, a direction to the respondent - corporation to renew the agreement for further period as per the prevailing practice and in accordance with the bye - laws.

3. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that pursuant to the application dated 12-1-1996, the petitioner was granted permission on 27-2-1996 (Annexure P / 3) to install hoardings on payment of annual rent. The same was followed for a period from 1-3-1996 to 13-3-1997. It was clearly stated that the hoarding so installed may be removed within 24 hours on notice to the petitioner. There was no clause for renewal of the period. Thereafter, further agreement was executed on 14-10-1999 (Annexure P / 4) granting permission from 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2002. The petitioner was further permitted to continue with the business of installation of hoardings upto 19-3-2003. On completion of the period, the petitioner including other persons who were granted permission to install hoardings were informed by public notice that they should remove the hoardings before 30-3-2003, thereafter, the same would be confiscated by the Corporation. By public notice dated 13-3-2003, on the same date, a notice inviting tender was issued from all eligible persons to make application with a security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- for agreement of permission to install hoardings for advertisement and further, a notice to remove the hoardings permitted upto 30-3-2003. Thus, this petition.

4. The sole contention of the petitioner is that there is no provision for inviting tender for grant of permission to install hoardings for advertisement under bye - laws framed under the provisions of S.427 read with S.132(6)(1) of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act, 1956'). Thus, the action of removal of hoardings and further publication of notice inviting tender is bad in law.

5. There is no dispute that the petitioner was granted permission upto 30-3-2003 to install hoardings for advertisement on payment of rent. The petitioner did not challenge the provisions of law. After the period of petitioner for installation of hoardings for advertisement was over, a public notice was issued inviting tender from all eligible persons. The petitioner seeks to question the legality and validity of the notice inviting tender.

6. S.132(6)(1) of the Act, 1956 reads as under:
"132. Taxes to be imposed under this Act.-- (1) For the purpose of the Act, the Corporation shall, subject to general or special order which the State Government may make in this behalf, impose in the whole or in any part of the Municipal Area, the following taxes, namely:
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
(6) In addition to the taxes specified in sub-section (1), the Corporation may, for the purpose of this Act, subject to any general or special order which the State Government may make in this behalf, impose any of the following taxes, namely:
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
(1) a tax on advertisement other than advertisements published in newspapers;
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
6. S.132(6)(1) of the Act, 1956 enables the respondent - corporation to impose a tax on advertisement, other than the advertisements published in newspapers. The hoardings are installed for the purpose of advertisement and the respondent - corporation is fully competent to impose tax. So far as competence of the respondent - corporation is concerned as regards there is no doubt that the r