W.P.(C.) No.3973/2012

Page 1 of 43

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 20.12.2012

%

Judgment delivered on: 02.04.2013

+

W.P.(C.) No. 3973/2012

TIMES INNOVATIVE MEDIA LTD.

.....

Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Krishnendu Datta, Mr. Diggaj

Pathak & Mr. Atul Singh, Advocates.

versus

DELHI TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel

for the GNCTD with Ms. Neha Kapur

& Mr. Nitin Saluja, Advocates for

respondents No. 1 & 2.

Mr. R. Vasanth & Ms. Taru Gupta,

Advocates for respondent No.3.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India being aggrieved by the award of contract for upgrade

of 319 Bus Queue Shelters (hereinafter referred to as BQS for both singular

and plural) and installation of BQS on 100 new locations across Delhi and

for operating, maintaining & marketing advertisement spaces on these 419

2013:DHC:1618-DB

W.P.(C.) No.3973/2012

Page 2 of 43

BQS for a period of 20 years (extendable by 5 years)- to respondent no.3 on

nomination basis in the month of June 2012.

2.

When the petitioner initially preferred this writ petition, the

petitioner sought for the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or

(b) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

or any other writ, order or direction, thereby quashing the all

Build-Operate-Transfer contracts in respect of Bus-Queue-

Shelters by Respondents 1 & 2 granted on nomination basis

and direct the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to float public tender in

respect thereof;” (emphasis supplied)

3.

During the course of the proceedings, on 06.09.2012 – in view

of the statement of the learned counsel of respondent No. 2 that all bids,

including that of the petitioner with respect to the aforementioned tender

have been found to be technically qualified, the petitioner chose to confine

the relief in the present petition to prayer (b) only, as extracted above.

4.

The petitioner herein, a subsidiary of Bennett Coleman & Co.

Ltd., is engaged, inter alia, in the business of displaying advertisements on

various outdoor medium including, but not limited to, advertisement spaces

at various airports, BQS, hoarding sites etc. It claims to have been certified

by the Brihan Mumbai Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking (BEST)

2013:DHC:1618-DB

W.P.(C.) No.3973/2012

Page 3 of 43

for showing good performance in installing and maintaining BQS; and by

the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palike (BBMP) for successfully

performing Build Operate Transfer (BOT) contracts in respect of BQS and

recognising its performance as being at par with „International excellent

standards‟.

5.

Respondent no. 2/GNCTD owns bus stops/shelters in Delhi and

has established respondent no. 1-DTIDC, a 100% owned company of

respondent no. 2, to enter into concession agreements with interested entities

for management and maintenance of BQS.

6.

Respondent no. 3 is a company incorporated under the

Companies Act, 1956 claims to be a part of the multinational conglomerate

of „JCDecaux‟ Group of Companies. It is stated to be engaged in the

business of providing outdoor advertising services in India and various other

countries.

Petitioner’s Submissions

7.

It is the petitioner‟s case that respondent nos. 1 & 2 have

consistently acted arbitrarily and indiscriminately in awarding BOT

contracts in respect of BQS. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

Krishnendu Datta submits that, while in some cases, the said respondents

chose to float tenders, in the present case, the respondents preferred to grant

contract on nomination basis.

8.

Mr. Datta places reliance upon the „Performance Audit Report‟

on the Commonwealth Games-2010 of the Compt