JUDGMENT

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. Petitioner has filed W.P. (C) 2515/2021 seeking quashing of two letters, both dated 11.01.2021, whereby the respondent No.1, South Delhi Municipal Corporation (SDMC, for short) has threatened to remove the advertisements on the bus queue shelters displayed by the petitioner.

2. In W.P. (C) 11574/2021, petitioner seeks quashing of notice dated 15.09.2021, whereby petitioner has been directed to remove the advertisements displayed on top of the bus queue shelters.

3. At the time of hearing of the petitions, it was agreed that the disputes arising in W.P. (C) 11574/2021 would be dependent upon the decision in W.P. (C) 2515/2021 and as such no separate counter affidavit or rejoinder has been filed by the respondents to the said petition.

4. As per petitioner, invitation for proposal for display of advertisements on bus queue shelters was invited by respondent No.3, Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation (DTIDC for short). Petitioner submitted its proposal, which was accepted by DTIDC and a letter of acceptance dated 27.11.2019 was issued. It is contended that the same was issued after following the prescribed procedure for submission of bids.

5. On 06.12.2019, a concession agreement for uplifting, cleaning and maintenance of 96 stainless-steel bus queue shelters was entered into. As a consideration, for uplifting, cleaning and maintenance of the bus queue shelters, advertisement rights vested into DTIDC were transferred to the petitioner.

6. On 24.01.2020, it is alleged that, the sites were handed over to the petitioner for commencement of work and display of advertisements.

7. On 11.01.2021, the letters impugned in W.P. (C) 2515/2021 were issued by respondent No.1, SDMC, threatening removal of the advertisements on the bus queue shelters on the ground that the allotment is in contravention of the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017. The letters were duly responded to by the petitioner contending that the petitioner has been duly allotted the bus queue shelters after following due process of tender allotment. Said action has been challenged in W.P. (C) 2515/2021.

8. Pending the said petition (W.P. (C) 2515/2021), another noticed dated 15.09.2021 was issued, directing the petitioner to remove the structures fixed on the roof top of the bus queue shelters, failing which it was threatened by the SDMC that they shall remove the advertisements displayed at the cost and liability of the petitioner. Said notice has been challenged in W.P. (C) 11574/2021.

9. The contention of the petitioner is that petitioner has been allotted the rights to advertise after following the due tender process by DTIDC, which had full right and authority to allot the said bus queue shelters for advertisement rights.

10. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that disputes, if any, between the SDMC and DTIDC are their personal disputes, which should be inter-se resolved by the two authorities and no liability can be placed on the petitioner qua the same.

11. Counter affidavit has been filed by DTIDC contending that the allotment had been made to the petitioner after following the due process. It is further contended that it was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to obtain necessary clearances from the MCD.

12. With regard to the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017, it is contended on behalf of respondent No.3, DTIDC that the policy is an outcome of a consultation process initiated by the MCD with Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) and Indian Railways and DTIDC was never part of the consultation process.

13. It is submitted that a meeting had taken place on 19.12.2011 between the Commissioner, MCD and DTIDC, wherein it was agreed that DTIDC shall share 50% of the advertisement revenue with MCD on MCD roads and 25% on non-MCD roads. It is contended that pursuant thereto, revenue share is happening at the above rates.

14. The stand of the Municipal Corporation is that the Outdoor Advertising Policy, 2017 had been fo