The court upheld the legality of tender issuance for advertising rights under 2017 regulations concerning roadside hoardings.

1. The present Writ Petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation being aggrieved by the tender issued by the Atal Indore City Transport Services Limited (hereinafter referred as AICTSL) in respect of advertisement rights of Ibus, Ibus Shelders, BRT railings via Lollipops, Unipoles Kiosks on Street Light Poles for a period of five years.

The petitioner's contention is that he is a permanent resident of Indore and is a social worker. His contention is that the tender has been issued in the month of August, 2018 for grant of advertisement rights on Ibus, Ibus Shelters, BRT railings etc. etc.

2. It has further been stated that this Court has decided a Writ Appeal i.e. W.A. No.82/2016 in the case of Indore Hoarding Traders Association & Another v/s State of M.P. & Others dated 10.03.2016 and relying upon the judgment delivered in the case of M.C. Mehta v/s Union of India reported in AIR 1998 SC 190 , it has been held that no hoarding, which is hazardous to free flow of traffic, can be installed.

3. The petitioner's contention is that the advertisement issued by the respondents is in violation of Art.141 of Constitution of India. It has further been stated that this Court vide order dated 10.03.2016 has settled the issue in respect of hoardings and the tender is contrary to the order dated 10.03.2016 passed in W.A. No.82/2016.

4. It has also been stated that the respondents are under an obligation to ensure safe movement of traffic and security of the public at large. However, the respondents ignoring the aforesaid, have issued the tender with an aim and object to generate funds. A prayer has been made for quashment of the notice inviting tender issued by the respondents.

5. A reply has been filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 and it has been stated that the order dated 10.03.2016 passed in W.A. No.82/2016 and the undertaking given by the Corporation was in respect of hoardings, which were hazardous and which were creating disturbance to safe traffic movement.

6. It has been stated that the concern of this Court was to ensure that the hoardings do not obstruct free flow of traffic and the respondents keeping in view various parameters, have issued an NIT, which is in consonance with the technical expert report dated 29.05.2015 and by no stretch of imagination, the hoardings are going to cause any disturbance in free flow of traffic. They can never be termed as hazardous.

7. A rejoinder has been filed in the matter and the petitioner has stated that the technical expert report was submitted on 29.06.2015, and thereafter, this Court has decided the matter on 10.03.2016 in W.A. No.82/2016, and therefore, the earlier technical report has got no meaning and all such hoardings, which are on the roadside, are hazardous in nature in light of the judgment delivered by the Division Bench.

8. It has further been stated that a review petition was also preferred by the respondents i.e. R.P. No.346/2017 and the same was dismissed by order dated 24.08.2017, and therefore, advertisement issued is contrary to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court.

9. An additional reply has been filed in the matter and it has been reiterated that recommendations and guidelines of expert committee have been followed to ensure that the advertisement on BRTS are not hazardous or creating disturbance to the safe traffic movement. It has been stated that earlier also in the year 2015 recommendations of the committee were followed and the contractor got all the designs approved by Structural Engineer before installation of such hoardings. The r