Full Text
Translation output
I
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 276/2013 & CM No.566/2013 (for directions)
TRIPLE ESS COMMUNICATION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 276/2013 & CM No.566/2013 (for directions)
TRIPLE ESS COMMUNICATION PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Abdul Sattar, Advocate
VERSUS
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT & ANOTHER ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, proxy counsel for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, GNCTD for R-1
Ms. Biji Rajesh, proxy counsel for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv, Advocate
Through: Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, proxy counsel for Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel, GNCTD for R-1
Ms. Biji Rajesh, proxy counsel for Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Advocate with Mr. Rajiv, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
21.01.2013 Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Pachnanda accepts notice for respondent no. I while Ms. Rajesh accepts notice for respondent no.2.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
This writ petition is yet another matter where because of internecine fight between the Municipal Corporation and the PWD, the petitioner has had to come to court for seeking relief as PWD is threatening removal of its advertisements displayed on the unipoles.
To be noted, in this particular case, East Delhi Municipal Corporation
21.01.2013 Issue notice to the respondents.
Mr. Pachnanda accepts notice for respondent no. I while Ms. Rajesh accepts notice for respondent no.2.
With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing and disposal.
This writ petition is yet another matter where because of internecine fight between the Municipal Corporation and the PWD, the petitioner has had to come to court for seeking relief as PWD is threatening removal of its advertisements displayed on the unipoles.
To be noted, in this particular case, East Delhi Municipal Corporation
W.P.(C) 276/2013 Page 1 of3
2013:DHC:7564 , had awarded a tender to the petitioner on 26.11.2012. Consequently, the petitioner secured the right to display advertisements at the following three sites :-
(i). Near Bus Stop, Hasanpur Village, FTC, Shahdara to Ghazipur
(Shahdara South), Delhi;
(ii). Site near DDA Market, Ghazipur, FTC Anand Vihar to Ghazipur
(Shahdara South); and (iii). Near Footover Bridge Bridge, BQS, Hans Apartment, Mulak Singh
Marg, FTC Shahdra to Karkardooma (Shahdara South), Delhi.
It is the petitioner's case that the said sites have been allotted to the petitioner for a period of two years from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, it has been threatened with removal of the advertisements at the aforesaid three sites by respondent no.1 i.e., PWD. The petitioner by a communication dated 10.01.2013, has written to respondent no.1, not to remove the advertisements displayed on the unipoles affixed at the three sites, indicated above.
In view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is made clear that no coercive action would be taken by respondent no.1 for removal of displayed advertisements at the three sites mentioned above. Respondent no.1 shall treat the present writ petition as well as the letter dated 10.01.2013 as a representation and decide the same within one week from today after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to appear and state its case. The concerned officer of respondent no.1 shall also take requisite inputs from respondent no.2 as the tender in issue, as indicated above, was awarded by respondent no.2.
2013:DHC:7564 , had awarded a tender to the petitioner on 26.11.2012. Consequently, the petitioner secured the right to display advertisements at the following three sites :-
(i). Near Bus Stop, Hasanpur Village, FTC, Shahdara to Ghazipur
(Shahdara South), Delhi;
(ii). Site near DDA Market, Ghazipur, FTC Anand Vihar to Ghazipur
(Shahdara South); and (iii). Near Footover Bridge Bridge, BQS, Hans Apartment, Mulak Singh
Marg, FTC Shahdra to Karkardooma (Shahdara South), Delhi.
It is the petitioner's case that the said sites have been allotted to the petitioner for a period of two years from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, it has been threatened with removal of the advertisements at the aforesaid three sites by respondent no.1 i.e., PWD. The petitioner by a communication dated 10.01.2013, has written to respondent no.1, not to remove the advertisements displayed on the unipoles affixed at the three sites, indicated above.
In view of the aforementioned circumstances, it is made clear that no coercive action would be taken by respondent no.1 for removal of displayed advertisements at the three sites mentioned above. Respondent no.1 shall treat the present writ petition as well as the letter dated 10.01.2013 as a representation and decide the same within one week from today after giving due opportunity to the petitioner to appear and state its case. The concerned officer of respondent no.1 shall also take requisite inputs from respondent no.2 as the tender in issue, as indicated above, was awarded by respondent no.2.
W.P.(C) 276/2013 Page 2 of3
It is difficult to appreciate h ·· c· h') h as to w y a citizen m t IS case t e petitioner) has to approach the court, when in a process initiated by respondent no.2, it won the right to display advertisements on unipoles.
Respondents will put their house in order, so that, citizens or entities who, through a legal process win tenders, are not harassed and are thus required to approach the court to seek redressal when, it is essentially a turf issue between them.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
List for directions on 05.03.2013 when the concerned officers, Mr. Diwakar Aggarwal, S.E., PWD and Mr. D.V.S. Kansal, Ex. Engineer shall remain present in court.
A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary alongwith the order passed in WP(C) 7910/2012 dated 19.12.2012, so that difficulties faced by the tenderers in this regard are brought to his notice.
Dasti.
JANUARY 21,2013 Yg
It is difficult to appreciate h ·· c· h') h as to w y a citizen m t IS case t e petitioner) has to approach the court, when in a process initiated by respondent no.2, it won the right to display advertisements on unipoles.
Respondents will put their house in order, so that, citizens or entities who, through a legal process win tenders, are not harassed and are thus required to approach the court to seek redressal when, it is essentially a turf issue between them.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
List for directions on 05.03.2013 when the concerned officers, Mr. Diwakar Aggarwal, S.E., PWD and Mr. D.V.S. Kansal, Ex. Engineer shall remain present in court.
A copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary alongwith the order passed in WP(C) 7910/2012 dated 19.12.2012, so that difficulties faced by the tenderers in this regard are brought to his notice.
Dasti.
JANUARY 21,2013 Yg
W.P.(C) 276/2013 Page 3 of3
JUDGMENT