The court upheld that a petitioner cannot be penalized for compliance failures of a respondent in executing necessary agreements for permits related to municipal works.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts.

P4 and P5.

2. The petitioner firm is engaged in advertisement field. Due to the lack of sufficient street lights on the bridges as well as on the roads within the limits of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner made an offer to install street lights, bus shelters, welcome boards and surveillance cameras in bus stands and other prominent places in the limits of the 2^nd respondent, at their own expense, on condition that the petitioner shall be permitted to establish advertisement boards on the poles of street lights without obstructing the view of traffic. The said offer was accepted by the Municipality as per Ext.P1 decision. Based on Ext.P1, Ext.P2 agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent. The petitioner was permitted to advertise in the boards for a period of 15 years. The petitioner completed the work to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent as evident from Ext.P3 photographs. While so Ext.P4 was issued, directed the petitioner to remove all the advertisement boards on the street lights stating that the same was without the permission of the 1^st respondent, Assistant Executive Engineer, NH Division, PWD, Palakkad. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent intimating that though permission has been granted by the 1^st respondent for installing streetlights, no formal agreement was executed by the 2^nd respondent with the 1^st respondent before entrusting the said work to the petitioner.

3. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent/Municipality, wherein, it is submitted that the petitioner has completed the agreement to their satisfaction, strictly in compliance of Ext.P2 agreement. The counter affidavit filed by the 1^st respondent states that advertisement boards have been effected without obtaining necessary permission from the 1^st respondent and the said activity is in violation of PWD manual, a copy of which is produced as Ext R1(b)

4. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has completed the work to the satisfaction of the 2^nd respondent and strictly in compliance with the conditions agreed in Ext.P2. After three months of the completion of the said work Ext.P4 notice was issued by the 2^nd respondent/municipality stating that the petitioner has to remove the same since the same has been installed without obtaining necessary permission from the 1^st respondent. Ext.P5 is the communication issued by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent, wherein it is admitted that permission has been granted to the Municipality for the installation of street lights by the side of the national highways that come within the jurisdiction of the 2^nd respondent. But, work has been entrusted to the petitioner without an agreement being entered into with regard to the same between the 2^nd respondent and 1^st respondent. The petitioner has completed the work expending huge amount from his pocket and that Ext.P5 could reveal that a permission has already been granted by the 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent. But, no agreement has been executed between the 1^st respondent and 2^nd respondent before awarding the work to the petitioner. Since, petitioner has completed the work as per Ext.P2, only for the reason of failure of the 2^nd respondent to execute a prior agreement with the 1^st respondent, the petitioner cannot be penalised.

6. Therefore, the above writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

i) The 2^nd respondent shall make necessary requests before the 1^st respondent for entering into an agreement or to grant necessary permission in this regard as stated in Ext.P5 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

ii