IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.580 of 2009 M/S Astitvaa, a proprietorship firm through its proprietor Sheela Tiwari, wife of Om Prakash Tiwari, resident of 507, Adharshila Complex, South Gandhi Maidan, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna ………………………… Petitioner Versus 1. Patna Municipal Corporation, Budh Marg, Patna-1, through the Municipal Commissioner 2. Municipal Commissioner, Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna (Bihar) 3. Additional Municipal Commissioner (Revenue), Patna Municipal Corporation, Patna (Bihar) ………………….. Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: M/S Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate & Raju Giri, Advocate For Patna Municipal Coprpn.: M/S Sujata Mukherjee & Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, Advocate. ------------ 5. 26.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation. The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 1.12.2008 (Annexure-5) issued by Respondent No.3, the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Revenue), Patna Municipal Corporation by which he has stayed the work orders dated 21.10.2008 and 26.11.2008. The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement was issued by the Patna Municipal Corporation which was published in the Hindi daily newspaper Hindustan on 15.11.2007 in which it was directed that only on payment of the royalty/ fee mentioned therein any type of advertisement, hording etc. can be put up within the Patna Municipal Area and for the said purpose the concerned advertising agency have to get themselves registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation on payment of registration fee of Rs. 5,000.00 - 2 - and for renewal an amount of Rs. 500/- shall be payable per annum. Pursuant to the same the petitioner applied for registration and also deposited Rs. 5,250/- as fee for the said purpose which according to the petitioner included certain miscellaneous charges on 11.9.2008. Thereafter the registration certificate of advertising agency was also issued to the petitioner on 28.11.2008 registering the petitioner for the year 2008-09. In the meantime, the petitioner applied for and received the work order with respect to installation of certain lighted Lolipops by order dated 21.10.2008 of the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) with respect to five stretches of road in which certain terms and conditions were also mentioned. Again for other stretches of road the petitioner was issued another work order by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) on 26.11.2008 for the same work subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter by the impugned letter dated 1.12.2008 it was ordered that as the Patna Beautification Cell has been transferred to Municipal Corporation, in such circumstances any scheme has to be approved by the Empowered Standing Committee of the Corporation and for the said reason the work orders dated 21.10.2008 and 26.11.2008 were stayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the work orders having been once granted there was no valid reason for the stay of the same. It is submitted that nothing has been brought on the record to show that any such approval of the Empowered Standing Committee is required in the present matter. It is pointed out that as a matter of fact, completely different stand has been taken in the counter - 3 - affidavit that the work orders have been stayed since they had been issued at the time when the petitioner was not yet registered with the Patna Municipal Corporation in terms of Section 45(2)(f) of the Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 and thus the issuance of work order prior to registration of the firm was contrary to the Act. The second ground taken is that one of the conditions of the work orders was that the approval or no objection certificate had to be taken from the concerned authorities before starting the work but the same has not been done by the petitioner. It is contended by learned counsel that both the grounds are non est. It is stated that the petitioner had applied for registration before the Corporation after depositing requisite fee as early as on 11.9.2008 and in terms of Section 46(3) of the Act, the same ought to have been issued within 30 days and in any case the registration certificate itself has been issued on 28.11.2008 for the entire financial year 2008-09. So far as the requirement of obtaining approval or no objection certificate is concerned, the same, according to learned counsel was to be subsequent to the issuance of the work orders and before starting the work and thus that could not have been a ground for stay of the work orders as the petitioner had already applied for the same and only on account of stay of work orders necessary approval or no objection certificate could not be obtained. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is that the authorities not be permitted in their counter affidavit to substitute new reasons in support of the order, - 4 - once they have given up the only reason mentioned in the impugned order and not tried to justify their stand on the basis of the reason mentioned in the impugned order itself. In this regard he refers to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others: AIR 1978 SC 851, in para-8 of which referring to an earlier decision of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16), it was held as follows: “The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16) (at p. 18): “Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.” Learned counsel for the Patna Municipal Corporation also seeks to justify the order on the new grounds taken in the counter affidavit but cannot support the same on the ground mentioned in the impugned order dated 1.12.2006. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds the - 5 - action of Respondent no. 3 as arbitrary and unreasonable which could not be supported by them in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent- Municipal Corporation on the ground mentioned in the said order. In the above circumstances, the writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner (Revenue) is set aside. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)